Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Magazine

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 ck lostsword•T•C 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Magazine

Vision Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable magazine. Article is written by the magazine's editor, thereby violating WP:COI and WP:SPAM. One unlinked outside source. Verification spotty to impossible. Realkyhick 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I tried to improve the article (not actually noticing the COI), but I just tracked down the newspaper article used as a source [1]. It does not really source the article or prove notablity. All it does is proves the magazine exists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. Corpx 04:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

JimMiller 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) I have done my best to follow the standards expressed by Wikipedia since the first article I helped write about Vision Magazine. As I have become more aware of the policies at Wikipedia, I have striven to improve as an editor for Wikipedia's purposes. A perusal of my editing history should reveal that I have contributed to the community by editing a number of articles. I also edited several articles anonymously before I learned the ropes and set up a login. I understand the necessity for objectivity, and I have on at least one previous occasion asked for help from the community at large in making this article more objective. I was "rewarded" for my forthrightness by having the article deleted. I spent several hours researching the policies and practices of Wikipedia over the course of several months before working up a new article.

The original version of this article was largely a copy of the one that was deleted. As you can see in the history, I quickly edited this version several times to bring it to a neutral point of view. Several years of experience losing writing projects to the inadvertent deletion monster have taught me to save early and often, which is the only reason I saved the original version before making any changes. I believe I have limited this article to simple facts, and that does not constitute spam.

Regarding the assertion of non-notability, Vision Magazine serves a niche of a niche: churches that use multimedia. This discussion may not be salient to all of the public, but within the American Christian church, it is a fairly hot topic. Search an online bookseller for "church multimedia" and you'll see a rather large number of books on the topic. In the Wikipedia articles for Seacoast Church, Fellowship Church, and LifeChurch.tv, their use of -- perhaps even reliance upon -- media is properly noted. These churches are consistently listed among the fastest growing, largest, and most innovative churches in America, and Vision Magazine has covered all three of these churches. My point is that if these churches are notable, and Vision serves as a source for their articles, it doesn't make sense that Vision is considered not notable.

Regarding the assertion of COI, the policy specifically states, "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." The statement that my involvement as editor violates COI is not self-evident, and no further evidence is presented. Evidence against the charge of COI is as abundant as it could be in such a short time. In addition to my own edits to remove a bias, I have opposed my own staff's changes when they even had the appearance of bias. When Mr. Z-man made corrections and RKessel restored something Mr. Z-man deleted, I asked him to revert his changes to not interfere with Mr. Z-man's attempts to help neutralize the article. Further, the fact that I use my own name as my user name should be a clear indication that I am not trying to hide anything. Everyone who reads this page can see who I am. There is no way for anyone to know for sure who Realkyhick and Z-man really are. (Not that anyone should. If I were in your positions, I would prefer to keep my legal identity under wraps.)

Finally, the Charleston news article that notes the existence of Vision Magazine also identifies its focus as being on multimedia, and it quotes me in my position with the magazine as an authority on the subject. Given the fact that the article doesn't attempt to describe much more than this, I believe it is inaccurate to discount the validity of the reference for these purposes.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this matter. I don't dispute that I have a vested interest in the subject, but that doesn't mean I can't squelch bias. I believe I have acted fairly and reasonably for the betterment of the community. I leave it to this community to judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimMiller (talk • contribs) 05:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, Jim, thank you for your forthrightness. However, there's a difference between "merely participating in" and have direct managerial involvement. You are writing about a magazine that you run, not merely one you work for. That's a different level entirely. Then there's the issue of notability, as recognized by other reliable sources, and of verifiability. I realize that church media is a niche subject overall — I used to work on the media staff of a large church, and still run video/computer screens each Sunday — but it is not so small a niche that your publication would not be recognized by others if it were notable. The source you cited is OK, but it would be better if there were a link to an online version of it so we could verify it. Circulation figures might help too, though we would likely have to take your word for those under the circumstances. Realkyhick 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position, Realkyhick. Vision is an emerging publication in an emerging field. It may not be our time yet for encyclopedic content. I would like to make a point concerning the use of the word "merely" in your response, if I may do so respectfully. I believe you may have used the word out of context. (It is an honest mistake.) In the COI notice, the context for "merely" applies to the fact of involvement, not the level of involvement. A paraphrase of this statement might be: "The fact that you are participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." In your distinction between participation and direct managerial involvement, you attached a value to the word "merely" that is not indicated in the original statement and in fact contradicts the spirit of the statement. The purpose of that statement, as I see it, is to serve as a caution for those who have a potential conflict of interest, not an automatic disqualifier. Whether or not this bolsters my case on this article, I would urge all editors to note this distinction when addressing COI issues. The first question when the possibility of COI arises should be this: If anyone else had written this article as it is, would you accept it? Those who would attempt to take advantage of COI would likely violate other principles of Wikipedia (as I myself did when I was a Wikinoob, and as the original posting certainly did before I began hacking away at it).

You mentioned circulation. Our ezine is circulated to 7500 church leaders via email each week. We have about 20,000 page views each month on our website. (Internal page views deleted.) For what it's worth, if I were going to make up numbers, I'd make up some bigger ones.

If I may ask a question, how are other magazines verified? I spot checked several magazines such as Wired and Sound and Vision, and they cite their own "about" pages as references. Wired -- a national magazine with a relatively long life and much buzz -- could only manage to muster one reference apart from a footnote reference to their own cite. That one reference is a book, which may carry more weight than a newspaper article that quotes you as an authority, but my point is this: If Wired only has one reference, what hope is there for anything else?

I know this is a borderline case for more than one reason. This is a good discussion that I hope will benefit all who read it. I know I've learned from it. Thank you. JimMiller 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the author of the book (Gary Wolf, not the Gary K Wolf of Roger Rabbit fame) on which the Wired article is based was a staffer at the magazine, according to the Publisher's Weekly review of the book that appears on Amazon.com. [2] JimMiller 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:N. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent references to establish notability per WP:N. --Alksub 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:N, WP:COI.(RookZERO 03:56, 2 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.