Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectacular Times

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as non-notable. --Haemo 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectacular Times

Spectacular Times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A non-notable series of pamphlets, perhaps an issue with WP:SOAPBOX. Jmlk17 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. asserts no notability. Mystache 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently notable enough to be archived in .pdf form, though I don't recall seeing this. Pamphlets of this sort used to be fairly common, particularly on college campuses, with messages ranging from revolution to religion. Maybe this can be merged into an article about that type of medium. Mandsford 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, please. I started the page, so obviously I think it serves a useful purpose. Notability is obviously a bit subjective, but many issues of /ST/ (seem to) have been in print continuously since they were first published. (And there are an awful lot of pages on WP about things which seem to me to be somewhat less notable; eg: Crispin Bonham Carter; List of characters in the Harry Potter books.) As to soapbox: well, yes, I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint of /ST/; but is the article insufficiently NPOV? Or is the issue that my sympathy makes me overestimate /ST/'s notability? --- One other thing is that there are (a few) links to the page. Omicron18 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• WP:N establishes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't good reasons to keep an article. If you feel that other articles don't meet the notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough to exist for at least 7 years and isn't overly focused on a single person's accomplishments Mbisanz 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This material is so strange one is tempted to vote 'Keep.' However the article completely lacks third-party commentary to establish the notability of these pamphlets. Being mentioned in a web bibliography isn't enough. The pamphlets appear to be self-published, or perhaps not published at all in any conventional sense. 'The Skeleton Key' with ISBN 0907837018 is listed on Amazon, but with 'Spectacular Times' listed as the publisher, which doesn't overcome the air of self-publication. EdJohnston 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• (me again): Fair enough re WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (And I should perhaps 'fess up that I converted the issues on archive.org to PDFs.) But: you can buy /ST/ from AK Press, Re-Pressed distribution, and various other alternative outlets; and /ST/ is discussed in the Ford bibliography, which the article cites. Omicron18 20 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.102 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A conventional publisher provides a degree of editorial scrutiny that gives us more confidence in the value of the work. That is one reason why we allow citation of edited publications like newspapers and magazines but always try to avoid personal web sites. See WP:SELFPUB. If you know of any published articles that comment on Larry Law's work it would help. WP:N asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Inclusion in a bibliography seems like only a weak claim of importance. EdJohnston 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.