Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic 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   delete. While copyvio concerns have been addressed, there seems to be a strong consensus to suggest that the magazine is not sufficiently notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Exotic Magazine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Local, free magazine. Claims to be nationally recognised but provides no evidence to this effect. Indeed provides no evidence that it is notable within Portland, Oregon. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence of National Recognition


 * Playboy TV's Sexcetera's coverage on Exotic Magazine and Portland, Oregon's adult nightlife. Direct link to video


 * SexTV's coverage on Exotic Magazine and Portland, Oregon's adult nightlife. Direct link to video


 * Michigan State University Libraries, Special Collections Division, Reading Room Index to the Comic Art Collection MSU Reading Room Index


 * Search page for Exotic Magazine.

"Frank Miller, Comics' Most Sinful Hero" / scripted by  Phillip Ray Simon. p. 15 in Exotic Magazine (Portland,  Ore.), v. 3, no. 12 (June 1996). -- Brief article on Miller (cover story). -- Call no.: HQ450.E9v.3no.12


 * Above MSU Comic Art Collection is for Frank Miller (comics), Darkhorse Comics and Exotic Magazine's collaboration for the June 1996 Exotic cover art Frank Miller Exotic Cover and the aforementioned associated article: Comics' Most Sinful Hero

bryan (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jim Goad was the editor of Exotic Magazine for over five years. His comic book Trucker Fags in Denial was first published in Exotic Magazine (Goad Warrior).  Three years later, his book titled Gigantic Book of Sex was published which primarily consisted of material he originally wrote for (and was first published in) Exotic Magazine (Gigantic Book of Sex TOC & copyright).


 * Evidence of Notability within Portland, Oregon


 * Exotic Magazine is directly referenced under the Media subsection of the Portland, Oregon entry:

"Exotic Magazine is the major monthly magazine covering the city's adult entertainment and nightlife since 1993."


 * Portland, Oregon was found to have the most strip clubs per capita than any other US city.Bump and Grind - 1995


 * Exotic Magazine is the only sex industry publication in the region and supports the industry through news coverage, editorial, photography and advertising.

bryan (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Portland Mercury writer Katie Shimer comments on being a huge fan of Exotic Magazine's "sex and sarcasm" and goes on to praise Exotic Magazine's then editor Jim Goad and his book Shit Magnet (The Portland Mercury Article).

Bryanbybee (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Most of the national references above were previously stated in the current discussion at the Talk:Exotic Magazine page had RHaworth taken the time to review that page before hastily tagging Exotic Magazine with AfD. Bryanbybee (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first blockquote is from the Portland, Oregon Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a source for itself.
 * The second one doesn't reference Exotic Magazine. It's just a fact about Portland.
 * The third one isn't supported by anything. It's an unsupported fact that doesn't contribute to notability. Please keep in mind that a strong conflict of interest can make it hard to follow Wikipedia's 5 pillars. tedder (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to use Wikipedia as a source for itself. The point was that Exotic Magazine was mentioned as a main media format in Portland, Oregon which should suggest notability in Portland. All other media forms mentioned in the entry have at least a stub page (aside from the now defunct BarFly Magazine).  In the case of Just Out and The Portland Mercury, I would definitely be interested to know why they haven't been put through this same level of scrutiny concerning notability as I am sure it is common practice to apply all Wikipedia guidelines uniformly (regardless of the subject matter of the topic).
 * Concerning your last two comments, I felt that it indirectly helped to prove notability that Portland, Oregon is known to have the most adult business per capita and that Exotic Magazine is the only media form in the region that supports this widespread industry. bryan 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanbybee (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Notability and third party references should be in the article, not the talk page. The JPS talk to me  12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The third party references were in the form of video and it was not completely clear as to how this should be placed in the article (due to direct nudity as well as external linking). Bryanbybee (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can reference the videos using normal tags, or a normal link, so long as it isn't a copyright violation. Wikipedia is not censored.  The JPS talk to me  14:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Notability needs to be added to the page and the page needs to fix WP:POV. – Turian   talk  13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources showing notability. Articles have to be verifiable, and this is. there is no rule about making editors jump through hoops adding sources, if the sources are shown to exist. The nominator is supposed to search for sources themselves before nominating, not just assume they don't exist. If a newbie editor adds sources to the talk page, that is not a reason to delete - it should be a reason to help said newbie. Yob  Mod  09:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight, Yob. I noticed the following points on the Articles for deletion page, but couldn't understand why they weren't being applied in this case, hence my original feelings posted on the Talk:Exotic Magazine page that the topic's content must be playing a role in the matter.
 * When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
 * Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

bryan (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources mentioned or listed in the article appears to be a substantial piece about the magazine, rather they are passing mentions. Unless a better source establishing notability can be supplied, it should be deleted for lack of notability. If such a source is supplied, the article should be cut back to a stub reflecting basic facts from that source, as the present content is not at all in compliance with Wikipedia content or style guidelines. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with Pete. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete There's really nothing that states notability. Just because something has been mentioned in passing doesn't mean that it is well-known. Sources need more solidity (for example, an article in a reliable newspaper on the magazine would be great). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stated this previously but it has (oddly) gone unanswered... Exotic Magazine was mentioned as a main media format in Portland, Oregon's Wikipedia entry (under the media subsection) which would suggest notability in Portland (why mention something that isn't worth talking about?)  All other media forms mentioned in the entry have at least a stub page (aside from the now defunct BarFly Magazine).  In the case of Just Out and The Portland Mercury, where are the sources stating notability???  I would definitely be interested to know why these entries haven't been put through this same level of scrutiny concerning notability as I am sure it is common practice to apply all Wikipedia guidelines uniformly (regardless of the subject matter of the topic). bryan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bryanbybee, I specifically answered both of those points above. tedder (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any answer concerning Just Out and The Portland Mercury and the lack of reliable sources proving notability. It proves an uneven application of this Wikipedia guideline just as Yob commented above. bryan (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again, but please get my name right in your edit summaries. Regarding Just Out and The Mercury, just because other articles exist isn't a reason to keep or delete the article. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the main points of the Other stuff exists page is that such comparisons are valid when they show inconsistencies in content inclusions or exclusions. Just as Yob noted above, in the case of Exotic Magazine, reliable sources showing notability are being scrutinized for lack of solidity and that they are only "passing mentions" whereas Just Out and The Portland Mercury have no reliable sources at all. Excerpt from Other stuff exists:
 * "..When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."" bryan (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, both the article on Just Out and on the Mercury contain reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. That's not to say you couldn't nominate them for deletion. In this discussion though, we're here to discuss the merits of Exotic in terms of our inclusion criterion, not other unrelated publications. -Pete (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Just Out is referencing a blog entry from a local website and The Portland Mercury is referencing the AAN (Association of Alternative Newsweeklies) which is no more than paying for a membership and getting a listing on their site.  The The Portland Mercurys listing on the AAN's is no different than Exotic Magazine's listing on Strip Club Publications and other "membership-based" sites.  Concerning deletion of these other publications, of course I wouldn't nominate either of them because they ARE' notable media forms within Portland, Oregon but if they were being scrutinized in the same fashion as Exotic Magazine's sources and references are, they would most certainly face deletion -- and this is my point. bryan (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Just Out, I stand corrected. Usually the content on blog.oregonlive.com qualifies as RS (it would be a major tangent to explain that), but in this case you're absolutely right. However, searching the Oregonian's archives, there's a similar article about their 5th anniversary in 1988, so I'll replace that citation.
 * Regarding the Mercury, no, the source is fine. It may not be sufficient to establish notability, but it certainly supports a claim of notability, and it's certainly a reliable source for the fact it's use to support. Your analogy is incorrect, because it's not a mere paid listing; an organization like the AAN has its own standards for accuracy. Also see my comments about audits, below. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To go into a bit more detail. What follows is not a policy-based argument, but is meant to explain some of the context behind my position. I am a longtime resident of Portland, and am familiar with all three publications.
 * Exotic, as I understand it, is generally a trade publication, meant to promote an industry, more than it is a news-breaking publication. This is not a value judgment, but provides some context for its importance in a community. The Mercury is an active member of the Portland media community, and competes to break stories, etc. Just Out aims to serve LGBT community in a variety of ways. Both publications take editorial positions. Exotic, by contrast, has a very high ratio of advertising to copy. There is indeed copy that is substantive; however, I don't believe there's any policy for adherence to journalistic ethics as far as keeping a strong distinction between advertising and editorial. So the advertising content may be effectively more than what is immediately obvious as advertising. All of this suggests that Exotic does not really even seek to distinguish itself as a publication in the way that the Mercury or Just Out do; those other pubs are routinely discussed in other media for the editorial positions they take, etc. I don't think this is the case for Exotic. Exotic generally exists to make money through advertising. I suspect there are many similar magazines out there in other markets, and I doubt they differ significantly in their content. (This is not to say there isn't the occasional bit of unique content.)
 * The Mercury has an independently-cited, audited circulation of about 40,000. Exotic publishes its own figures, but makes no mention of audits: 30,000 print run, 70,000 circulation. Presumably, they're basing these numbers off multiple people reading an individual issue. This is exactly the sort of thing an independent auditing firm is needed to verify.
 * -Pete (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return only passing mentions. None of the sources provided by establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as copyvio of magazine's press kit, pure advertising, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the copyvio, since it is likely to be rewritten, do you have comments on the AFD itself? tedder (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a complete waste of everybody's time and energy. It's a blatant copvio, it's undeniably advertising, since it was copied from the magazine's presskit; there's a consensus to delete, once you discount the !vote and comments of the article creator, who turns out to be an employee of the magazine . Just speedy delete it as is the normal process for cases like this, and in the unlikely event a legitimate editor chooses to write a legitimate article on the subject in the future, the question can be looked at in a different light. Stick a fork in it, it's done. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since you've decided to ignore the process called for by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo, I think Tedder's action is entirely consistent with WP:COPYVIO, which explicitly states that if the poster owns the content or is authorized to make decisions about its licensing, they're perfectly entitled to release it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA just like any other contributor. That's not to say the content should be included; but it appears unlikely that it is a copyright violation. (See the discussion on Tedder's talk page.) -Pete (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [Never mind, some mornings I'm just too cranky] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy is always optional. Assuming good faith is not; allowing the AFD to continue doesn't hurt anything. tedder (talk) 16:49, 14 August 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.