Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Stone


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd Stone
Expedited Cleanup desired by nom
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to be a notable magazine to me. No awards, no outside notice, not a very high circulation. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's just a bad article. It had some notable authors, see for instance. I found this in an article in Antiquity (journal) "But Cope is by no means alone in taking a more holistic view and taking issue with the view that only professional archaeologists have the right to put forward new ideas about the past. The magazine The 3rd Stone follows much the same path, and has a rapidly increasing subscription base and considerable public following. It carries articles by a wide range of authors and gives each equal weight." Google Books and Google Scholar turn up a number of mentions and citations to it, eg dougweller (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Artw (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Expedited Cleanup. Guy's long overdue proposal is what's called for here, based on Dougweller's search. If there's no change in 3 months, another AfD may be needed. I suggest a time limit in the spirit of the EXPEDITED part of the EC vote. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason to hold onto it for three months to wait for it to maybe become good. It can be deleted and then someone can come up with a good article and sources and either get it undeleted or start over. Don't keep bad articles aroudn just for the sake of it. Clearly does not have notability right now, but if what dougweller says maybe someday soon it will and it can be recreated. We aren't a crystal ball or a charity case or whatever. DreamGuy (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note' AFD guidelines clearly state it's not intended to force cleanup. Instead, post the appropriate tags and if you really want something cleaned, deliver a note to a relevant wikiproject or possibly interested editors. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Any editor can improve articles without nominating them for deletion. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: no third-party sources to establish notability. Sole source is a broken link to a series of brief reviews in fellow-traveller publication Fortean Times. HrafnTalkStalk 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: make that "a broken link to a series of brief reviews in fellow-traveller publication Fortean Times" that doesn't even verify the information cited to it. (I just Waybacked it to check.) HrafnTalkStalk 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added another source. Darvill is a very well respected archaeologist. Do we need more? dougweller (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call a 9 year old mention in a review of some other book "significant coverage" Yes, you need much more. (The review is approx 1600 word, excluding references -- the 3rd Stone mention is 35 words -- or 2% of the total -- trivial coverage, as defined in WP:NOTE.) HrafnTalkStalk 11:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *The fact that the 'mention' is 9 years old is itself trivial. As the review isn't about the magazine, I wouldn't expect a longer comment on it but as someone who knows a bit about British archaeology and Darvill I wouldn't call his mention of it trivial. The magazine has featured some respected authors. It's cited in some reliable sources. It had some reputable writers whose articles would be considered reliable sources. I'm not clear what more it needs. dougweller (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added that Stan Beckensall was also a contributor. If the magazine isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, why did these people contribute to it? And we aren't just talking about fringe authors like Michell. dougweller (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If the magazine isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, why did these people contribute to it?" (i) Sometimes notable people contribute to non-notable ventures. Notability isn't transitive. (ii) The majority of the listed authors aren't notable. As to the new sources, I would note that three are to 3rd Rock itself, or to its predecessor (not independent), and that the fourth is completely trivial (to a mere citation). This continues to leave Darvill's 35 words as the sole thin thread of claim to notability. HrafnTalkStalk 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult. It has contributions from respected and notable academics, articles cited in books and articles by other reputable sources (and we would, I hope, accept those articles as RS), it was kept in University libraries and listed as a resource by various good online archaeogical websites, eg the Council for British Archaeology, but still not notable. I don't think I can find anything else but if it gets deleted, well, that seems a bit quirky. By the way, it has been more or less resurrected as "Time and Mind" dougweller (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether it is WP:FRINGE or not (though I am skeptical on that point), but whether it is WP:NOTE or not. That requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This is not a "quirky" standard -- the opposite of 'notable' is 'obscure' -- and numerous specialist websites, libraries, etc can quite conceivably, and quite commonly, list or hold a great deal of obscure material. 35 words still doesn't cut it. HrafnTalkStalk 11:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed Krupp is a debunker of fringe stuff, it's not fringe, 'bridge' maybe. There are various grades of 'notable' and the term is from my experience here relevant to context. In the world of British archaeology and folklore, this was, I'd argue, notable. From the point of view of the general population, obscure may be a fair desciption. I do think the fact that a number of its articles are used as citations in reliable sources, and that prominent organisations or websites (archaeological, yes, but prominent in that field) listed it is worth something. dougweller (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of "The question is not whether it is WP:FRINGE or not" did you fail to comprehend? The "world of British archaeology and folklore" is not the benchmark for notability -- "strong evidence of interest by the world at large" is (WP:NOTE, footnote 5). HrafnTalkStalk 13:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, we agree about far more than we disagree. I know what the benchmark is for notability. I'm not 100% convinced you are interpreting footnotes 2 and 5 correctly, since I've seen successful arguments that notability can be within a more limited sphere than literally the 'world at large', I am simply speaking from my experience with AfDs. And I agree the fringe issue shouldn't matter, my response was just to your skepticism about it. My perception is shaped by my having read several issues of the magazine and probably knowing more about the context than you do. That does NOT mean I am saying I know better, it just means that that shapes my perception and probably makes it seem more notable to me than it does to you. It's part of my bias, as it were. We all have biases. I've already said I can't find any more evidence, it will be up to whoever closes this (and I hope it is an Administrator and that it goes the full 5 days, I am wary about some of the closes in the last few months). dougweller (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnote 2: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." "independent of the topic itself" leaves out the two citations to 3rd Stone, and the citation to At the Edge which was merging with it. "Vendor" leaves out the two references to www.megalithic.co.uk, which sells it. "Non-trivial" leaves out the mere citation in Archaeoastronomy & Ethnoastronomy News. As I believe I may have mentioned once or twice before, this leaves Darvill's 35 words (which itself falls flat on the "focus on it" part). On footnote 5, I was reading between the lines (but then, you presented no solid evidence requiring an explicit guideline to match it up against). I don't however think it is too idiosyncratic an interpretation to consider that the more specialised and obscure the 'world' under consideration, the more prominent or notable the topic must be within it for it to be considered to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. By way of example, I'm sure that there are a large number of whole medical journal articles written on single specific surgical techniques -- that would not, in and of itself, mean that each and every one of these techniques was a notable topic for an article. HrafnTalkStalk 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dougweller. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand a little if there are further sources. DGG (talk) 04:03, 6 January 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.