Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ally 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 03:58, 11/13/2007

Ally Magazine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Conflict of interest. Creator and main editor is affiliated with company that owns the magazine (see admission of affiliation at User talk:Allstarecho). Previous related article was deleted and creator/editor has chosen to remove references to magazine's previous 2 names and history. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as nominator. Non notable per WP:CORP and violation of WP:COI. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment - User_talk:Hemstrong, the creator and main editor, removed the AfD template. I reverted. Also, he/she left the following comment on my talk page: I've contacted Ally magazine's legal department. It seems your just a sore fag because your a wiki editor and not part of something successful. I hope ALly gets on your ass. Then the user blanked my talk page. I reverted that as well. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That should have no effect on the deletion discussion. Also, I don't think you have to add a comment to delete if you nominate an article.  I think it is implied. - Rjd0060 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nominators all the time leaving their own comments to delete. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Though WP:NPA can be invoked... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the civility of a user has absolutely nothing to do with a decision on AfD. -Rjd0060 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: First, COI is no reason to delete an article, ever. Secondly, seems like a notable magazine.  Could use a few 3rd party sources, but no reason to delete it now. - Rjd0060 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on COI but then there's the matter of WP:CORP as also stated in the nom rationale. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis of being unable to find any reliable third party sources via web or news searches. The only thing that came up via news search was a primary source press release. Not to be confused with the motorcycle magazine "Biker Ally Magazine". -- Sesame ball Talk 06:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources (and nothing signicant found under any of the three names). --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've heard of the publication under another name and is a prominent source in the journalism industry. It seems the user who nominated the article for deletion is not in compliance with the best interest of wikipedia due to "Hemstrong" leaving a vulgar comment on the users site. The user should put personal reasoning aside and act in the best interest of the community.  Further, sources have been provided by myself and whoever created the article, a search of news sources does come up with several Press Releases about the publication. - bstringer87 19:04PM, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Press releases are primary sources and therefore do not satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability. Additionally, what evidence do you have that the nominator is "not in compliance with the best interest of wikipedia"? -- Sesame ball Talk 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the vulgar comments were left on my talkpage by the user AFTER the AfD nomination, saying I am not in compliance with the best interest of Wikipedia and saying this is personal, is frankly B.S. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Account created after AfD nom. --AliceJMarkham 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a B. Stringer is listed as Amos Palm's senior VP of Public Relations on their Oct. 21 press release. • Gene93k 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. COI is not a reason for deletion, but failure to establish notability certainly is. --AliceJMarkham 12:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No evidence of notability from independent 3rd party sources. • Gene93k 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per AliceJMarkham and Gene93k; agree that COI per se is not grounds for deletion. Allstarecho is right, that the accusation of personal animus is B.S. -- Orange Mike 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Odd stuff but I got an email today, allegedly from the namesake of the magazine's parent company. Not sure if it's allowed to post the whole email here so if it isn't, then an admin will remove it. Interestingly, the email came From: Hemstrong , User_talk:Hemstrong of course being the creator and main editor of the AfD article as well as the previous article Queer magazine and the person that kept removing the AfD tag and vandalizing my own talk page. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be a great source from what I've read so far.  Why not contact the publication office or editor; obtain the references needed instead of inviting it to be deleted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming from someone who keeps removing the COI and Unrefed tags from the article, using an IP registered to Target Corporation that has been repeatedly blocked from editing due to vandalism? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  02:43, 13 November 2007 (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.