Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collapse Board

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/userfy Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Board

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by an IP without explanation. Magazine with no evidence of notability independent of its founders, no relevant Gnews hits. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've added a little bit to this article to give some grounds of notability. While it's still very much a stub, I think what has been added provides good reason not to remove it. 75.48.78.183 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't see how the references you added can qualify as relevant here. I was unable to find anything but a passing mention of Collapse Board in them. Just because a single article has been cited elsewhere doesn't make a magazine notable. Also, the "slogan" is way too long to qualify as such: it looks more like a mission statement to me (but that is perhaps the magazine's fault, in which case we at Wikipedia will have to live with it). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collapse Board doesn't appear to fulfill the criteria for magazines:

It is not an award-winning magazine.
It is relatively new, so it doesn't have a strong historical purpose or significance.
Although mentioned by one source and quoted by another, I wouldn't say this makes it authoritative in its subject area.
It's not frequently cited (yet).
It's not a significant publication of ethnic or other niche markets (in this case, music criticism).

Furthermore, the citations of the magazine's coverage seems to be limited to events surrounding this one Radiohead album. It'll need to see its cited work expand a little farther than that to earn notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pains of Being Pure At Heart, a very popular indie band, also mentioned an article by Collapse Board, I don't know if that means anything. Here. Should I add that in, would it mean anything? I'm sure it will gain more citations from outside sources in the coming months, that could be a more suitable time to rewrite the article, I guess. 75.48.78.183 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no-- articles written by the magazine itself don't help support its own notability. When it does have those citations and outside recognition that you mentioned, the article can be recreated, but not before that. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. If you don't mind, could you move the article to a subpage of my userpage instead of deleting it? Dotbrodu (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2011 (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.