Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beard fanzine
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 delete. Coredesat 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beard fanzine
This article seems to have been created as an advertisement, has no external sources, and has a WP:PEACOCK problem. Spammy article written without a desire to fulfill WP:RS, WP:NPOV or WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable zine with apparently only six issues released. No sources, doubt they exist. faithless (speak) 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I lived in the westend of Glasgow and have read this mag. I knew some of the folk around at the time, who published and wrote for it. It a small community. A whole bunch of folk know and have read it and that makes it notable. scope_creep 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per above; although they probably do exist, that isn't enough to make it notable. - Rjd0060 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and, I suppose, scope_creep's context. Maxamegalon2000 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Scope creep's statements effectively damn this one - notes that it is notable to a very, very small group. That, and 'zines don't tend toward notability in the first place. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment - I'll advocate for zines, here, Dennis. I'd say a zine can meet Wikipedia's notability standards even if, say, it only appeals to Francophone stoat-farmers of rural Aberdeenshire. All it has to do is get mentioned in reliable secondary sources, right? But, at the same time, its notability should be demonstrated with the use of reliable secondary sources in the article, and the article's content should come from those sources and not be original research. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well put, but note that I just said that they don't tend toward notability. Hopefully that won't imply that they just aren't notable - I think there are a few notable zines out there. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly. But, all Wikipedia can hope for is that some external third-party source has written at length about them. After all, that's the only way we can really determine notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well put, but note that I just said that they don't tend toward notability. Hopefully that won't imply that they just aren't notable - I think there are a few notable zines out there. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment - I'll advocate for zines, here, Dennis. I'd say a zine can meet Wikipedia's notability standards even if, say, it only appeals to Francophone stoat-farmers of rural Aberdeenshire. All it has to do is get mentioned in reliable secondary sources, right? But, at the same time, its notability should be demonstrated with the use of reliable secondary sources in the article, and the article's content should come from those sources and not be original research. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikley reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 23:09, 3 November 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.
