Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stranger (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stranger (magazine)
A speedy delete request was made on this page as blatant advertising. I don't see it, but am setting up this AFD to get a wider view. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. CitiCat 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Again, could you please tell me how exactly this page differs from one like this. This page is not intended as advertising. If you can explain to me what I would have to change I will do it! Fourfourcandles 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't think it should be deleted, instead it should be made more neutral. I can see why someone would have thought it was advertising. LiamUK 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no independent non-trivial coverage, thus currently fails WP:CORP. --Huon 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, I was able to add one source to this very easily, but I couldnt find an ISSN. John Vandenberg 14:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have now added some more references. I will add some more to this tonight. Fourfourcandles 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant coverage; no reason to add to the bloated The Stranger disambig page. VanTucky (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- "no significant coverage" - what exactly does this mean? Fourfourcandles 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The requirement that subjects receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per the policy outlined in WP:Notability VanTucky (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. Tell me, would a page such as this one satisy the correct guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_Magazine_%28UK%29 Fact are one of our competitors. We could quite easily create a page similar to that if it wouldn't be deleted. There are no links, other than to Fact's website, on that page at all. All we want to do is set up a page so that the other wiki pages that are linking us (in album reviews, for example) can actually link to another wiki page (our wiki page) rather than a 'red link'. Thanks for your help. -- Fourfourcandles 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article on Fact Magazine (UK) meets speedy deletion criteria, as it provides no evidence proving notability. I have tagged it as such. VanTucky (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Could you actually help me by pointing me in the direction of a similar article that would make the grade? Fourfourcandles 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article on Fact Magazine (UK) meets speedy deletion criteria, as it provides no evidence proving notability. I have tagged it as such. VanTucky (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. Tell me, would a page such as this one satisy the correct guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_Magazine_%28UK%29 Fact are one of our competitors. We could quite easily create a page similar to that if it wouldn't be deleted. There are no links, other than to Fact's website, on that page at all. All we want to do is set up a page so that the other wiki pages that are linking us (in album reviews, for example) can actually link to another wiki page (our wiki page) rather than a 'red link'. Thanks for your help. -- Fourfourcandles 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The requirement that subjects receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per the policy outlined in WP:Notability VanTucky (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- "no significant coverage" - what exactly does this mean? Fourfourcandles 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - In my opinion, this article should not be deleted. I am currently completing an article Cornish media] which I started a couple of months ago, which is trying to encompass all media in Cornwall - which has a great diversity. The background to this magazine dovetails nicely with other aspects of print media in Cornwall, and, as such, should be kept intact. Tinminer 10:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I cleaned up the article and expanded it with footnotes. There are sufficient reliable sources to write a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep magazine has received coverage on regional level from print and broadcast media, is distributed nationally through at least one major print-retailer, as attested in the references in the article. DuncanHill 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Cornwall list of articles for deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:21, 19 July 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.
