Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Skidoo (magazine issue)


 * 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. As everyone but the creator have mentioned, Wikipedia is not an art magazine, and, I might add not a webhost. There is no indication this issue (or even the magazine) meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

23 Skidoo (magazine issue)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unremarkable issue of an unremarkable magazine. No indications of notability, no references. Contested prod (which had gained two prod-2 additions).MikeWazowski (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The magazine is not unremarkable. It has published 23 issues, and included many well-known artists as contributors. — Shoenoverns (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - 23 issues is not much in the magazine world. Also, even if you had "well-known artists as contributors", notability is not inherited. You've failed to demonstrate notability for the magazine itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you an expert on the magazine world - and the history of the magazine world? La_Révolution_surréaliste ran for twelve issues. What are your criteria for assessing notability for magazines? --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012


 * Delete - A7 really should cover this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, we need an A7 category for this, but at this point, publications are not eligible. Looks to me like some art project (see also the garbled message on the article's talk page) and the issue seems to exist according to a Google search (otherwise I'd think this was some hoax), but that's about all I found: zero sources, no notability. Too bad it was dePRODded, this is a waste of editor time. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am the author of the page. I am also new to posting articles on Wikipedia, so I am not completely familiar with the process. One of the reasons why there are no sources available yet on this article is that it has not yet been published. This article IS in some ways an art project, and one of our concerns is the issue of notability, and who decides what is notable. I believe that the inclusion of this page in Wikipedia is defensible and would ask that people not be in a hurry to delete it. I note that the subjects of the issue are certainly notable (documenta 13 and tino sehgal) and the magazine is also notable (it has featured many very famous contemporary artists and art projects). Also, what is A7? (Shoen Overns) -- Shoenoverns talk 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please see the garbled message on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoenoverns (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A7 refers to one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I don't see what criteria are covering this article. I note that arguments based on what Wikipedia is not are not sufficient... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoenoverns (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are none, that's what Bushranger and I were alluding to, that we actually need an A7 criterion to deal with this kind of stuff. Please, in future refrain from trying to turn WP into your personal art project. It's easy enough to set up your own website, where you can play around as much as you want. Creating an article about a non-existing magazine issue comes perilously close to vandalism... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The quanty of available relialbe source material decides Wikipedia notability per WP:GNG. Is this some art project related to 23 skidoo (phrase)? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not correct, and your statement demonstrates to me an insensitivity and rigidity of thinking. As I understand it, Wikipedia is a collective project which is devoted to the spread of human knowledge. This is also our project. It is not my personal project, it is a collective project. I think that it is the same project. So why can't we contribute to it? I would suggest that the extremely rhetorical way that you are speaking (we collective versus you individual) it seems to me that your statements (and those of Mr. Bush Ranger) on this point are quite police-like in their overtones and their assumptions of authority. With all respect, I think that you are in a different place, and that you should also questions these assumptions. What I mean is, as regards this aforementioned human knowledge project, I would please invite you to consider that there is some irony in speaking of a non-existent magazine issue. --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it doesn't seem to me that you're here to contribute to an encyclopedia, which is something very different from an art project. If you want to contribute, please read our policies and guidelines. Everybody can contribute and is certainly welcome to do so, but creating inappropriate pages as part of an "art project" is not a constructive contribution. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there is such a clear distinction between an encyclopedia and an art project. You state that it is different, but you do not give reasons why... same with the remainder of your statement... inappropriate, not constructive... I would certainly be interested in hearing your reasons, but at the moment I feel that you are not arguing with reasons, but from authority. Please tell me where, within your policies and guidelines, there is a breach of ethics or of spirit? I don't think one has been demonstrated.--Shoenoverns (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An art project is supposed to be something original and unique. The artist creates something that didn't exist before. Here we create, too, but in a different sense: we only write things that are based on reliable secondary sources. In contrast with an artist, we don't create content out of nothing (even though I fully well understand that an artist does not operate in a vacuum and can be inspired/influenced by earlier artists). There's a huge difference. Hope this explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know if I share your views on the uniqueness and originality of art. Actually, this is a relatively recent (and actually somewhat unfashionable) definition of what art is, and how artists should operate. The more contemporary idea is that artist should contribute to society and knowledge. I will tell you also that what's interesting to me is the extent to which the separation between art and scholarship (for example) is upheld on the basis of a number of metaphysical assumptions and theories (like the problem of creation ex nihilo, which you are currently citing. I take from this strange fact the understanding that it is necessary to question all assumptions as regards strict demarcations, and especially so when it comes to topics like notability, which is a highly metaphysical idea, and extremely difficult to establish as a concept. You will notice that every attempt to do falls back on mysterious criteria: there appear to be authorities of notability, but from where does their authority - ultimately - derive? --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I add that the fact that many well-known artists have contributed to the magazine precisely demonstrates it's notability - the fact that it has had notable contributors indicates that it has status in the world which it inhabits, just as a scientific journal that has had many well-known, say, noble prize winners writing for it would be considered notable by virtue of the fact of their participation.--Shoenoverns (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC) -- Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The spread of human knowledge by Wikipedia is limited, per WP:GNG, to that human knowledge contained in reliable sources that are independent of the subject being spread via Wikipedia. The knowledge that many well-known artists contribute to the magazine is not from a Wikipedia reliable sources, so that knowledge does not belong in the Wikipedia article. Also, their contributions to the magazine are not independent of the magazine. Shoenoverns, if the article is deleted as a result of this articles for deletion (AfD) discussion, you can post a request at WP:DRV that the AfD deletion decision be reviewed using one or more of the reasons listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - If I understand correctly, this is actually a single issue of a magazine that is the topic of this article. I see no coverage in independent reliable sources that would indicate that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me what independent reliable sources would be required to indicate this, and I will see if I can find them for you. You can say this is the single issue of magazine, but it is possible that it is actually something stranger and more notable than that, which merely has taken this form. What I am trying to say is that the principles at stake here are more important and more interesting then perhaps they seem. Another point which I would like to make is that I believe the magazine itself, which does at the moment have a Wikipedia page, would qualify would for one based on the Wikipedia standards of notability. But I think the more important problem is to understand the hierarchy of the criteria, and which criteria are ultimately fundamental in deciding whether something can be included, or must be excluded. To be sure, Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. But from where do these guidelines come from? I think that they come from a certain ethics of knowledge, and I believe that on these terms, this article should not be deleted, at least, until we have satisfactorily concluded this discussion. -- Shoenoverns (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Reliable sources can be magazines, newspapers etc. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia, that is, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per the general notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The 23 Skidoo (magazine issue) topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the 23 Skidoo (magazine issue) subject for a stand-alone article as required per Wikipedia notability. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (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.