Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn Avenue (publication)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Auburn Avenue (publication)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent references discussing the magazine in depth. Only one issue published as yet: article creation too soon, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Several independent citations have been added that support the description of the publication. The page should not be deleted. It should be reduced to a stub. juliarulia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)  — juliarulia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: The 6 sources currently in the article are 2 references to the magazine itself, 2 links to publication lists of some writers who published in the magazine, and 2 times the same link to an article about a story that doesn't mention the magazine (the only connection is that the page links to Auburn Avenue where the story was published). None of this comes even close to the independent sources covering a subject in depth that are needed to satisfy GNG, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually the "2 links to publication lists of some writes who published in the magazine" help to substantiate the first sentence of the Auburn Avenue article, and reflects the source material that Auburn Avenue publishes. The other "2 links to an article about a story" have been revised to reflect 2 separate features of Auburn Avenue's content by a reputable independent source (Kimibilo Fiction), which reflect its notoriety by an independent website/source. This Auburn Avenue article would be classified a "stub" so more "in-depth" information would be needed to expand it to a full article; but it doesn't disqualify it from becoming a "stub." The 2 links to the publication itself are not necessary but do help to support the written content of the article. 4 out of 6 are independent, verified sources. juliarulia (talk) — juliarulia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, those "sources" do not "substantiate the first sentence of the Auburn Avenue article". Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lists of publications from authors are not independent either, as it is in the authors' interest to publicize their work. So at most the two Kimbilo pages are an independent source, but as they don't even mention the magazine, that shows perhaps that some stories are of interest (or their authors), but it doesn't contribute to notability for the magazine. (And given that Kimbilo is published on WordPress, it's not clear how much it would actually contribute to notability even if the magazine had been mentioned). --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has now been marked as a "stub." More information is certainly needed and the article has room to grow with the addition or more independent sources, but to delete it would be unfair to its small yet still recognizable presence. Do you still propose that it be deleted? juliarulia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)  — juliarulia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: stubs are articles, too, and need to meet WP:GNG like anything else. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I believe the articles referenced do suggest notability (to whatever subjective degree) and the stub should not be deleted. Stubs have room to grow and expand. Furthermore, I've come across dozens of stubs that don't have any references cited and they have not been recommended for deletion. To keep citing WP:GNG when only selected articles are being held to that standard is unfair. There's no required quantifiable amount of sources or coverage that constitutes "significant coverage." To nit pit whether two cited independent sources actually mention the publication, when the sources are clearly recognizing and featuring its exclusive content, is also unfair. I still contend that there are no concrete identifiable grounds on which this stub should be deleted. juliarulia (talk) — juliarulia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient coverage by acceptable WP:RS which contravenes content policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Also unable to meet criteria for GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD (applies to web content such as this). The article makes no credible assertion of significance, and cites zero sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. This is WP:TOOSOON and clearly an attempt at using Wikipedia as a publicity platform. The rationale by the COI editor above, "to delete it would be unfair to its small yet still recognizable presence" is preposterous. Wikipedia isn't about fairness. A publication don't get an article merely for existing. If a subject is not notable, it doesn't merit an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2017 (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.