Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smyles & Fish

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 of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smyles & Fish

Delete - prod removed, without explanation of course. No apparent claim to fame. Wickethewok 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no clai to notability, no evidence per WP:CORP Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Promotional. The page looks like an advert or mere link to an under-construction web site. It's only apparently "noted" achivement has been local leafletting and advertising. Ande B 23:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at this point, the entry is promotional. As Ande notes, the web page is still under construction. Google shows only 3 hits (excluding their own site). Brillig20 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I Agree the website is still underdeveloped but the print version seems to be the main issue here. If anyone has any detailed information on it he should add it. I've seen the flyers but not the magazine, it's possible the first issue only came out recently. I've also heard of the citizen culture contest, so I would wait for more information before deleting it. Right now, I don't think it hurts to leave it awhile and see if anything is added. Johnnyquest 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete :: bring back when they've achieved something more permanent that leafeletting (otherwise every 419-spammer will take their own page) -- Simon Cursitor 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I started this article because I believe print magazines usually imply a certain commitment on the part of creators, while there are millions of dead websites written by bored teens out there. As you can see in my article on Zembla, I think there's value in writing about printed magazines that present new approaches or ideas, even if they didn't last too long. I hope to get hold of a copy of Smyles & Fish soon and expand the article on it. If anyone has a principle objection to any sort of article, I would really like to hear it (If the article reads like an ad I apologize, at any rate, I'm not sure what kind of promotional value it has, it's not linked to, or feeding off, some popular article). I'm looking forward to responses, I'm here to learn. AshcroftIleum 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody disputes their commitment. In a few years when they have a circulation in the tens of thousands or more and are widely discussed in secondary sources they can certainly have an article, but right now the magazine is too new and too small to have the amount of coverage required to ensure that it can be covered in line with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS; also per WP:NOTABILITY it might fall into the category of WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information). So: not at all a bad idea for an article, and it may well emerge as a suitable subject in time, but now is too soon, I'd say. This implies no criticism of either you or the publication. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. PJM 11:34, 18 April 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.