Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$pread (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

$pread
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Winning an award for "best new title" hardly confers notability.  In fact, this magazine is not notable and lacks the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to suggest otherwise.  JBsupreme (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, What is the nomination reason?Smallman12q (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * JBsupreme is the nominator. He disguised his rationale as the first "delete" !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable third-party sources listed on page. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 11:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: per " non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications". I added about of half a dozen such references, which were quickly reverted by User:Carl.bunderson here, along with the snappy comment "rv, these are not referenced, and ergo not references". As the user appears somewhat more experienced in edit wars than I am, I will not re add them. For the purpose of this discussion, please consider them.  T L Miles (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also this, a village voice interview/discussion of the magazine, which was also previously removed from the article. I also note the January 29 2009 AfD of this article made reference to a Washington Post article, which I can only assume was also removed. T L Miles (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm here, the Utne award is not for best new "title of a magazine", but the term "title" as in "publication". The award reads "...but sit down with an issue of this already controversial title and you'll realize..."  So that would suggest notability.  T L Miles (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Miles, it would have made considerable more sense for you to have added content, and sourced it with the sites you provided, rather than doing a half-assed job and adding "references" to the article. And please don't get the impression I'm a poor editor. If you had to deal with an incivil git such as Spin, you'd be sorely tempted to edit war with him as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul! Wikipedia has a unique ability to get under the skin of the best of us -- myself included/especially. T L Miles (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking my response in stride! Have a good day :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * flag it don't delete it, if it was "half a$$ed" pohick (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: After rereading the guidelines (there are none as of yet for Magazines specifically), this magazine clearly has mentions which (according to the definition at WP:GNG) are not trivial (single sentence in book, listing of opening times, an event listing) and fall within ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". The publications in question: Utne Reader, Village Voice Time Out, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Press, are third party and independent "Reliable sources".  I also don't see any change since the last AfD a little more than a month ago that would make us believe the inherent notability had changed.  T L Miles (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Miles. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Award winning ("best new title"), the VV article looks solid as do a few other sources. Meets WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources. I also found a couple of more mentions in the Village Voice: ("Best Of" 2006 and "School for Johns") -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability is obvious, with the given sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Jwray (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2009 (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.