Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Mayhem

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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mayhem

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Though this publication appears to have had its ardent champions, going by the expressions of praise and bereavement to be found in the sources that the creator of the article supplied, I can find no sources other than, perhaps, this, with significant coverage of it that would support a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. There are several independent sources currently in the article, including Dragon Magazine and Space Gamer. I've also found some coverage here:

"Beyond the worlds of the Monopoly players" by Frank Green, Hazleton Standard-Speaker (Feb 1, 1988)
Suspense & Decision #1
Suspense & Decision #5
"Extinction of the Species", No Fear of the Future (May 2007)
There are also examples of the magazine in a University of California archive of play-by-mail game material.

Given that Paper Mayhem existed long before the internet age, and that pretty much every source we can currently find says that Paper Mayhem was one of the driving forces of the Play-by-Mail community, I think that it's likely that there are other sources that haven't been digitized and archived yet. WP:NEXIST says: "Before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I think that there is enough evidence to support the claim that Paper Mayhem was very important in its specific subject area, and that more sources are likely to exist. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that for this publication, I should have checked an archive of print publications as you've done. On the other hand, the four that you lists are thoroughly consistent with my summation of the situation: they have no more than bare mentions of the subject and don't, on their own, contribute to notability. Look, the coverage in one of them consists entirely of "I even had a subscription to the PBM industry magazine "Paper Mayhem" for a year."

On the "other other" hand, I won't dismiss your point that the nature of these expressions implies a greater regard among members of the PBM community. Normally, when sources supporting notability fail to be presented, I see that as the end of the matter, but I'm more on the fence in this situation. I see below that others are agreeing "per available sources", but without bringing any such sources to our attention. That amounts to "it's notable because I bet it's notable". Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This publication seems to have been greatly influential in its subject area. Its certainly better sourced that Play-by-mail game, and I agree with the WP:NEXIST arguments presented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the editor in chiefs of two gaming magazines have stated this magazine's importance. Largoplazo noted this from Suspense and Decision's editor in chief, while Dragon Magazine's editor in chief Roger E. Moore said in 1988 that Paper Mayhem was the "best established and ... most informative" of the various play-by-mail magazines available at the time (as stated in the article). [NOTE: I created and am the major contributor to the article. Also, I continue to find sources, but it's slow going—mostly acquiring out of print, hard to find, magazines from the period. I.e., Paper Mayhem, existed, it was hugely important, the sources we have tell us that, and it will be a while before it's a Featured Article. :)]
Keep per above comments. Also the exact kind of unique "ancient" history that Wikipedia should cover. Caro7200 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Borderline. Both sides make good points. In the end, through recently I lean deletionist, I kind of agree with Caro00 and the commenter above. It's not a spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 8 March 2020 (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.