Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relevant Magazine

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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Magazine

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

Unsourced, poorly formatted, and contains no assertion of notability. List of "references" includes only 3, 2 of which are links to this magazine's website. Entirely promotional. SuaveArt (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons given by SuaveArt Thparkth (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There certainly are mainstream references: for example, a full story in USA Today [1] I wonder at the nomination--its not just a failure to follow WP:BEFORE, the link is right in the article itself (though erroneously included in the External Links section) DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the AfD nomination failed to take into account the USA Today and CNN stories listed in the External links section - sources therefore did exist and there is more secondary coverage available (including the newly-added Newsweek citation to support significant circulation figure for a specialty genre). Concerns over "promotional" nature were not raised at the article itself before AfD, an affront to a due process. WP:DEL also does not list "poorly formatted" as a valid deletion criterion. Issues are entirely resolvable by regular editing. Dl2000 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has failed to do basic research into this publication. I have added a book, for instance, which details the background and offers critical observations of the subject. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not my problem. If the author was too lazy to actually add these sources or cite them properly, then it's his fault, not mine for nominating an improperly sourced piece of junk for deletion. I don't see why I should have to do a lazy person's work for them.--SuaveArt (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't say that there weren't sources in the article - at the time you nominated it for deletion, articles in both USA Today and CNN appeared in the links, in addition to the cited references. Which makes five references, hardly the "unreferenced" article that you assert. Coverage in those sources can be said to be in itself an assertion of assertion of notability (in that the subject has been noted by reliable sources). I don't think anyone was going to bring up who is being 'lazy' here. After all, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I take it that you are opposed to any sort of cleanup project. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I AFD the article, I checked the references to see if they included actual coverage, and at the time there were no internal citations that I know of (if I made a mistake I apologize, but this was the case with several similar articles which I AfD'd, some of which have been deleted). My problem is essentially this, because this is what I see happening in several of my AFDs:

"User 1" creates an article which contains no citations and reads like a promo for a company.

I AFD the article because the author didn't even bother to read our policies before starting a new article

In the AFD, "User 2" tells me the article is notable because "plenty of sources are available on the internet" (even though the author didn't bother to properly cite them and created an article that was more promo than serious entry) and tells me I should just do the author's work for him and rewrite the article instead of creating an AFD.

So basically, I'm expected to rewrite articles which I have no personal interest in (which I have already done several times) just because the author of the article was too lazy to do this himself. I'm more at fault for AFD'ing a clearly inappropriately-written entry than the original author is for creating an entry that was essentially a promo and violates our article guidelines. I just don't understand this mindset.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is, we're not entirely too different. Here is the main one: I choose to work in a field that I have a general knowledge of, rather than one than I have only cursory knowledge. I devote what little time I have to work on articles related to Christian music because I have sources relating to the field. I wouldn't work on, say locomotives, lamps, or breakfast cereals, and I certainly wouldn't go around judging which ones might be worthy of articles. After all (my opinion), notability policy requires us to judge articles on the actual merits of the subject, rather than the content of the article. In many cases I consider it to be a fact that I am not in a position of judge those things.

Similarly to yourself, I feel that I am under no obligation to take action on any particular article (nor is anyone else). I am a fan of the "community model" for articles that I frankly may not care about, however broken or dysfunctional that may leave the article. For instance, Carman (singer), where I've said as much. But even if articles have long-standing issues, that doesn't mean that the need to be deleted. Again, merits of the subject, not of the article. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your duty, just as much as anyone elses, to look for sources and improve the article if the subject is notable. Don't nominate for deletion unless you have good reason to believe the subject is not notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep is very well known and can be found at many Christian book stores, has a large subscription base...and USA Today article shows its notability..Travisharger 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep I see enough coverage to convince me it is notable. 100k subscribers is quite high too. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the strong secondary coverage provided. Also, since the nominator feels so strongly about being familiar with policy before creating an article, I would recommend some familiarity with WP:BEFORE when creating an AFD, particularly point 9. You're not expected to "rewrite the article" if you're not interested in that, just refrain from deletion nomination after checking that sources exist, and leave an appropriate tag. Holly25 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2010 (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.