Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion 5.0


 * 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. I'm sorry Gracophilus but there's a clear consensus here that this magazine isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fashion 5.0

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. Non-notable magazine. The creator of the article may have a conflict of interest with the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was found on your talk page. "Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fashion 5.0, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)" --Gracophilus (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being eligible for speedy deletion has no effect on this discussion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I found no significant coverage and the two references in the article are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wetpaint.com is rated as the 1890th largest website in the world according to Alexa.com --Gracophilus (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Gracophilus (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor appears to have a conflict of interest with the topic. See Articles for deletion/List of Fashion 5.0 cover models. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reference added to the article:
 * --Gracophilus (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete wetpaint.com is hardly a reliable source for notability purposes, mrmagazine (link above) is a wordpress blog. A blog hosted on the Fashon Institute Of Design And Merchandising talking about the magazone cisiting magazine visiting is I the same league. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC) comment fixed, damn you autocorrect!
 * Comment please note the new reference as commented below. Your past inclusion of a citing from Deseret News, which is smaller than Wetpaint or MrMagazine, cited that it passes passes WP:GNG. --Gracophilus (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you comparing a reliable source (newspaper) to an unreliable source (a blog)? SL93 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say blogs are unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracophilus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not use-generated content and passes. "Blogs... may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write... posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Mr. Magazine is the highest authority in the field and speaks only to the largest industry leaders. Operates as a portal under the University of Mississippi's Magazine Innovation Center, which he founded. --Gracophilus (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You must not have read the entire section, allow me to assist, the section I was refering to states:
 * "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.  (emphasis added on the portion that you must have missed when you were reading it, but did manage replace with ellipsis).
 * What they refer to in these instances, are for example, a New York Times journalist who writes a blog, hosted by the New York Times, which is subject to the same editorial oversight that one of there articles would. I am not questioning that Samir A. Husni is a university professor, I am not questioning his status as "founder and director of the Magazine Innovation Center", and I am not questioning that he interviews important people.  What I am saying is that his personal Wordpress blog, which shows no affiliation with the university, and presumably has no editorial oversight (as it is his personal Wordpress blog), is not a reliable source when it comes to determining notability.  I hope this has cleared things up for you.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. So a magazine that exits print after a few years and decreases it's publishing schedule to an irregular basis (Eliza (magazine)) is notable, where a publication with notable celebrities such as Shwayze, Ali Fedotowsky and Alexis Bellino on the cover, as well as celebrity editor Tenley Molzahn, is considered non-notable? --Gracophilus (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks that way. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The last two interviews on MrMagazine.com were with the publisher of Food Network Magazine and the President of Hearst Magazines. http://mrmagazineinterviews.wordpress.com/ --Gracophilus (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I kept out of this debate, but as it's been relisted, just had a look. Trawled through Google for first 10 pages, found no significant coverage, but lots of blog references and passing mentions/nods. It's probably only a matter of time but at this moment, the magazine doesn't seem to be currently notable by Wikipedia standards due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. However, I get the impression that if it is given a year or two, it may well achieve the references/coverage required. But for now, it's a no from me, sorry. Mabalu (talk) 09:40, 26 April 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.