Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/twikker

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. This whole AfD is basically a dialog between L.J.Skinner and Ewen. Discounting comments from single-purpose accounts (there were several), two other users commented, both suggestiong Delete. So that gives us 3-1 in favor of deletion. But 4 commentors is not much of a quorum. It's established in the arguments that the entity exists, and that it's "...of particular interest to people in Sheffield and former students of Sheffield University"; neither of these are very strong arguments. That it's one of the oldest rag mags is another argument, but also one that confers very limited notabily, as rag mags are... just rag mags. HOWEVER... on the other hand, the current article is quite different from (and a lot better than) the state of the article when deletion was proposed. So the discussion is pretty much about a past version of the article, not the current version. The two Delete votes were early, so I'm not sure those commentors would have voted the same on the current version. So I'm going to give it a pass. I'm being generous; Delete would also have been a reasonable close. A relist would perhaps have been appropriate, but I don't want to ask editors to wade through the existing dialog. No Consensus allows it to be put up for AfD again, immediately if desired. If so could commentors please keep their comments succinct. Herostratus 07:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twikker

Magazine of no note and with very little information provided. delete L.J.Skinner, talk to me 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I oppose deletion on the grounds that Twikker discusses a magazine with a long and interesting history of particular interest to people in Sheffield and former students of Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University. In terms of longevity and number of issues it is easily comparable to Revolver or Deadline. Ewen 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Student publications are usually not included simply because there are too many of them. At my college of under 2000 students, I know of at least 20 student newspapers and magazines published during my four year tenure. The only possibility for notability comes from the article's claim that Twikker is the longest lasting example of its genre. However, this statement is not backed up, and as such I can't see any reason for keeping it around. -bobby 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the oldest Rag Mag recorded at the copyright library of the University of Cambridge. Ewen 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Sheffield University. Rag magazines are not generally notable of themselves. Now, if they lead to court cases or something of the sort, fine, but that would be notability for that year's issue, not the title itself. BOBBY's comments above reflect the gulf between American and British culture unfortunately and I doubt if he appreciates the significance of a University's rag week and rag mag, nor the extremely high standards of British student journalism (rag mmags excepted!). Nevertheless, for all that Twikker is a good read, it's not really notable. [My own position by the way, is British, resident of Sheffield, but not a student for 30+ years.] Emeraude 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why merge into Sheffield University though? It is of much less notability and Steel Press/DARTS or Sheffieldbase, the former has a rudimetry article (basically a long list of bigging itself up) and the latter nothing at all. Does Twikker even deserve a mention? [edit:Sorry - forgot to sign] L.J.Skinner, talk to me 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I also oppose deletion of the Twikker entry in Wikipedia. Over the years literally hundreds of thousands of these entertaining magazines have been sold across the country, and there is still a thriving market for old editions on Ebay, along with other Sheffield Rag and Twikker-related memorabilia. The fact that it was the very first Rag Mag makes it worthy of note alone. Our fifth-year student from Sheffield shouldn't offer his ignorance of the history of his students' union as a reason to delete this worthwhile entry. And just for the record, there are currently moves afoot to bring Twikker back.Shortofapicnic 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, please, lets not revert to insults... I was simply stating that I've never heard of Twikker, ergo, nothing of note. Please do not call me ignorant. I know about Sheffieldbase, Steel Press, DARTS, Film Unit, rafting down the river Don, SUTCo etc, I could name all the Working Committees (I'm in one of them and regularly use three others). I can tell you about the major changes to the Union's constitution last year re: Union Assembly/Committee and I have mates who have been here since 1998 and showed me some of their old copies of DARTS etc. I also know last year's inaurgal "Woman of the year"; an active member of the union. To have a student as active within the union as myself and not know about Twikker, well, how many people can it have affected? Nothing against the article, or the person who wrote it, I just don't see it as notable, it is not referenced, has no citations/sources, is biased and is frankly just a long list of names. L.J.Skinner, talk to me 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • 'Ignorant' could be read as a simple statement of fact: 'You were ignorant of the existence of Twikker', rather than ignorant in general. Anyway, it is a logical fallacy to leap from 'I have never heard of it' to 'It is nothing of note'. There was a time when I had not heard of Lev Vygotsky's work, but does that mean it is nothing of note?
      • As for referencing: How does one reference a magazine? For example, see Deadline magazine or Mojo (magazine). You could always have a look through the back issues of DARTS: October 1987 was full of news about the Union's attempt to ban Twikker, for example. The Sheffield City Star would mention it regularly too. You could ask at the Rag Office...
        • OK, fantastic, will you show me the references in the 10/1987 DARTS and in the star. Your current references aren't much use.
  1. ^ The Cambridge University Library has copies back to 1930 and lists uncollected issues back to 1925. - your reference makes no note of Twiker
  2. ^ Ragout (1950). - also a simple word (no link) with no referencing
  3. ^ Twikker, 1943 - as above,
L.J.Skinner, talk to me 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I see you have added noncompliant, NPOV, unsourced, not verified, importance and tone tags to the article. As Basil Fawlty said to the health inspector: 'Anything else?'
      • Ewen 07:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I dunno... I wonder what else I can find :). Well, you've cleaned up some of those poblems - the (why?) in particular was in rather poor tone, and you didn't have any any references or sources. Hey, if nothing else, this Afd has made this into more comprehensive article! L.J.Skinner, talk to me 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
          • No, I have made it into a more comprehensive article because you are trying to have it removed. Now that I have 'cleaned up some of those problems' I'm sure you'll remove the tags... Lewis, do you still think it should be deleted? Ewen 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


  • twikker was/ has been an integral part of Sheffield/the Sheffield universities' lives for many many years, I don't see how it can be dismissed as pointless.
  • It also encompasses something of a nostalgia, for the "old modes of speech" in the Sheffield area, coming from the saying "in 't'wikker in Sheffild, wheer 't'watter runs oer't weir" * translation:- "in the Wicker, (a street in Sheffield) in Sheffield where the water runs over the weir"
    • Hardly the point, and additionally offensive to Sheffielders...L.J.Skinner, talk to me 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • please don't delete the original "wiki" piece about it, as it is a little piece of local history. Added to Twikker:talk on 30 October by Plain talker.

Please dont delete this - in fact expand it - as a ex Sheffield student it is great to read about our Rag Mag, it brings back so many memories of both buying and selling it (expecially the visits to other places in the mini bus).please ask people to write other articles about the history ot Twikker - KEEP IT (U Brassy Tart)

  • It would certainly need expansion (as has been done) and better referencing. If anyone can find any old Twikker mags, Rag mags or the above mentioned october 1987 DARTS, that'd be great L.J.Skinner, talk to me 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How many times do I have to say it? Once more? OK: You can find every issue (1930 to 1991 at least, with Ragout in place of the 1950 Twikker) in the Cambridge University Library. Other copyright libraries should have similar collections. Sheffield City Library has a small collection. You can buy them from time to time on eBay. I have no idea who'd keep DARTS 8-) but I'd guess old Sheffield Stars are not too hard to source. Ewen 12:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So? SHOW ME! I can't see these online, so put them online. If old Star are not hard to source, source them!! It's your article afterall! L.J.Skinner, talk to me 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So what if you can't see them online? Since when did verifiable mean 'something I can find on the internet'? Why not move away from your computer and investigate the real world outside? If you check the 'Verifiability' policy you will find that "Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Well, you can. It might take a visit to your nearest copyright library but you can verify the references I have given. There is no requirement for online materials in the wikipedia policy. You know what? I'll meet you at the Cambridge University Library on Saturday at 11.00 am and I will bloody show you if you want. I'll be wearing a pink carnation... Ewen 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry mate, I'm in Newcastle this Saturday, how about the following Saturday?
            • So ,that's confirmed then: You are able, next Saturday, to check the references I gave. (I'm afraid I can't make that date but I'm sure the Cambridge Library staff will be very helpful with your request.) Ergo: The references are verifiable. Ewen 06:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • From 2-11-06's featured article on wikipedia:
Zhao, Yilu. "At Stuyvesant, Kudos for Scientific Creativity in the Shadow of Ruin", New York Times, 2002-01-17.
Medina, Jennifer. "Stuyvesant Defeats Inertia To Lead Intel Rivals Again", New York Times, 2003-01-16.
Baltrip, Kimetris. "Stuyvesant Again Leads in Science Contest", New York Times, 2004-01-14.
Koppel, Lili. "New York Students Dominate Intel Science Contest. Again.", New York Times, 2005-01-27.
Palmer, Caroline. "New York Tops Other States In Science Award Semifinals", New York Times, 2006-01-16.
"What Makes a High School Great?", Newsweek, 2006-05-08.
That's six references you won't find online. In wikipedia's featured article. See? Online sources are not the only sources! Ewen 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If your concern was that the article should be expanded, or better referenced, then why didn't you say so originally, Lewis? Why propose the article for deletion? "it is a small article, intended for expansion at a later date, and I will include details... as I have time" Ewen 12:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you have done so without AfD? It has sat unchanged for four month prior to this, and now you've suddenly expanded it? L.J.Skinner, talk to me 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, yes I would. (Or someone would - If I wanted to be sole author I wouldn't have used wikipedia.) A tag for expansion would have prompted me to do something, if you were impatient to know more. AfD? Sledgehammer to crack a nut! Ewen 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is how Mr Skinner came across the article in the first place. What were you looking for? And isn't it nice to find something unexpected occasionally? You weren't aware of Twikker's existence, and now you are. Hurrah! I think requests to have articles removed should be reserved for items that are defamatory, inaccurate or just plain made-up. Do any individuals have the right to otherwise censor information based on their own prejudice or (that word again) ignorance? Shortofapicnic 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Checking over the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion again, I think the following comment is pertinent: "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" See also Discussion of similar issues. Ewen 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read this 'discussion' with interest but am slightly confused. If the original proposer for deletion now wants the article expanded rather than deleted, should this discussion be proposed for deletion? As an ex Sheffield University student, myself, I was very happy, if not surprised, to find an article on Twikker in Wikipedia. I can't claim to know how important a publication should be to not be deleted, but, surely, a publication which chronicals the developments of any body of people's sense of humour (or lack, thereof) over such a long period of time is noteworthy. Oh, and by the way, I oppose deletion. --Dive Monkey 01:07, 9 November 2006 (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.