Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.


[insert of strikeout begins here. 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)]
The result was delete. (soft), which obviously means it's free for anyone to draft/userfy. slakr\ talk / 05:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[insert of strikeout ends here. 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)]
The result is incubate.  Editors agree that the article is not currently suitable for mainspace and agree that it is has the potential for improvement in draftspace.  The closing administrator has incubated the article.  See User talk:Slakr#WP:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine.  A discussion section is open on the talk page here at WT:Articles for deletion/Rock Revolt Magazine#Follow-up discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Revolt Magazine

[edit]
Rock Revolt Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable magazine. Article lacks non-trivial support and it does not appear support is available. reddogsix (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Given that the nominator has edited the article ten times since nominating for deletion, this is evidence that the nominator does not consider the nomination argument strong enough to get the article deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - LOL, if I did not believe it was non-notable I would not have nominated it. Additionally, if I felt it was adequately supported as a result of additional edits, I would have indicated so and closed the AfD. Perhaps I don't give up on articles as it appears you would once you nominate them for deletion and perhaps I am hoping the article can be saved by someone. reddogsix (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This IMO is a close case for deletion with the evidence I have found: the magazine is cited 11 times on Wikipedia, and there is a similar body of usage on Google Web.  Google news finds one reference.  You tried a speedy deletion ten minutes after the article was created, which seems incompatible with the statement "perhaps I am hoping the article can be saved by someone."  After the speedy was declined noting that you had not given the article enough time, it was another hour and ten minutes before the deletion nomination.  What was the point of adding maintenance tags after the nomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since when is being cited in Wikipedia a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? I suggest you sharpen up on Wikipedia guidelines or if I have missed something, please cite the criteria so I can review it. There are 142 hits in Google. the majority of them are equal to "so and so, was interviewed in Rock Revolt Magazine" with no further mention of the magazine. Hardly valid, non-trivial support or hardly a major body of work. Only one reference in Google news? The news article was not even about the magazine nor did it mention the article beyond a few words. The precise statement in the article was, "...RockRevolt Magazine conducted an interview with vocalist..." This is hardly non-trivial support. Since when is the timing of the deletion nomination relevant in an AfD? Your inclusion of this red herring does nothing to support the/your argument for inclusion into Wikipedia and only masks purpose of the AfD. Either it meets the criteria for inclusion or it does not. I also do not see you casting your !vote for keep - feel free to do so, but be prepared to support your comments. reddogsix (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) To answer one of your questions, nominators are advised when creating a deletion discussion, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I stopped the preparation of a !vote when I checked the talk page of the article.  Nominators are advised when creating a deletion discussion, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..."  I wonder why you did not withdraw your nomination when the content contributor tried on the talk page to work with you to improve the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) IMO, we have a body of evidence that the topic here is "worthy of notice" (WP:N), as evidenced by on-going attention from various people who cite the magazine, both on and off Wikipedia.  I certainly don't agree that we cannot consider the benefit to other Wikipedia editors of maintaining a marginally notable publisher on Wikipedia.  What is missing IMO is the requirement of WP:V#Notability, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  And this is a point where the content contributor might be able to help.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I have another question, did you consider a bold move of the article to WP:DRAFTS?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rather than continue to cloud the true purpose of this AfD, let's focus on the true intent of this exercise. Does this article meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. At this point no and I have not seen any argument from you or anyone else that supports notability. There is nothing that stops moving this to a draft or userfication of the article. reddogsix (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've cited and quoted the core concept of WP:N notability to you, "worthy of notice".  As for moving this to draftspace, agreed.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is also my hope that "the article can be saved by someone." As this is my first article created on Wikipedia I am sure that I make mistakes you have all seen countless times. I have linked nearly 50 articles/references to this article (I'm sure there are more yet to find), and I continue to seek out the necessary sources to meet "notability" guidelines. Any additional advice or guidance through this process is appreciated. Thomasworoniak (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Articles created for inclusion into Wikipedia must meet certain criteria. Specifically, they must be notable. The issue often surfaces that "real world" notability differs greatly from Wikipedia based notable. In addition, articles must be supported by non-trivial verifiable, independent resources. The references need to be secondary in nature. The references you point to are not secondary, they are primary. You have not shown there is adequate support for the article. reddogsix (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the reply. While I understand your point, and the reference to the linking of "50 articles" etc. was not meant as criteria for notability, I am confused how an article like Blabbermouth.net passes the notable criteria and RockRevolt does not? I see that the Blabbermouth.net article cites the Blabbermouth.net website as a reference. I'm referring to the roadrunnerrecords.com reference that simply redirects back to the blabbermouth.net website. I'm not trying to shine negative light on blabbermouth, I read their posts regularly...just using it as an example of a music related publication/article, and attempting to learn the difference. Thanks for your patience and assistance. Thomasworoniak (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate, as per the statement of the nominator that "There is nothing that stops moving this to a draft or userfication of the article.", multiple requests from the content contributor for clarification of Wikipedia processes, and my own statement quoting from WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rock_Revolt_Magazine&oldid=1140115511"