Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filter (magazine) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Filter (magazine)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real assertion of notability; there have been no exclusive interviews, and even the NY Review of Mags source (which, despite its title, "is an annual magazine published by students at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism", and itself hasn't been published since 2010), claims it's a very niche magazine. Therefore, as far as unequivocal RS is concerned, all there is is a Billboard article saying the mag folded (no pun intended). There's no guideline for magazine notability, but it doesn't meet common-sense barometers like popularity (stated niche), circulation (claimed 85,000, where our own List of magazines by circulation top 100 in the US it at minimum ten times that), or longevity (only 12 years, between 48-60 issues, because the article is inconsistent). MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * delete the last AfD said that the magazine should be kept because it was mentioned on the NY Times  and that it was a source on Google News. Those are false arguments. 1.) a mere mention does not count as notability. That fails WP:N 2.) Google News sources isn't reviewed by an editor. I vote delete, this magazine fails WP:N. The argument for why it was kept in the last AfD is false. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are sources out there about them:  from Billboard,  from Ad Week,  from Consequence of Sound,  from CraveOnline,  from the Los Angeles Times.  Still trying to decide how I feel, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply - Those sources aren't really focused on the magazine. The festival and magazine are rightly considered products of the company (Filter Creative Group), but this article isn't about the company. The mentions are mostly trivial, as well: CraveOnline, where it's mentioned once, and Billboard, where it's one of about ten "brands" mentioned. Adweek is about FCG and doesn't mention the mag. Consequence of Sound is three paragraphs on the end of the mag, and is less in-depth than the Billboard source in the article on the same thing.  The LA Times article doesn't even mention it in the article itself. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The sources say that the festival is an part of the magazine ("Filter magazine's Culture Collide Festival" seems to be how they describe it).  But even if it's separate, an article could probably be written about FCG.  There are certainly independent sources about its various ventures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this is deleted, let's make Frank Luther Mott proud and save the content somewhere. Mott's volumes on the history of American periodicals are great, he didn't necessarily have "entries" on every publication, but would include discussions on most defunct periodicals.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as I've found nothing better, the entire article is still questionable for the needed notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "Good music will (still) prevail, even though Filter, the Los Angeles-based music magazine and Culture Collide festival promoter and organizer, will cease operation by summer's end. Filter co-founders Alan Sartirana and Alan Miller have parted ways to pursue their own endeavors. The latter will continue the Culture Collide brand as an editorial platform and its namesake festival, scheduled for L.A. (Oct. 16-18), San Francisco, and New York. Sartirana will launch Anthemic, an online music and culture publication, in September. The story was originally reported by Buzzbands.la."  The article notes: "Circulation: 85,000 Date of Birth: 2002 Frequency: Five times a year Price: $4.99  If you can find it in a store, Filter is hard to miss on the shelf. Filter sticks out, and not just because it is physically larger and usually much thicker than Rolling Stone or Spin. It is also not just about mainstream music culture. Filter focuses on “good” music, freely translated to mean “indie” music and the culture that surrounds it.  Each issue of Filter is stacked with long-form artist Q&A’s, photo portfolios and profiles of well-known acts like Julian Casablancas and Peter Gabriel. A healthy chunk of space is reserved for “Getting to Know” new bands and spotlighting bands “You Should Already Know.” The back of the magazine is liberally sprinkled with bite-size album reviews and an eclectic mix of pop and indie culture events, updates and news.  The real draw of Filter is its approach to the indie scene. Big-name magazines like Rolling Stone, Spin, Q and NME are fantastic resources but usually focus on established acts and rock aristocracy. Indie publications devoted solely to uncovering unknown new acts are often snarky or appear condescending. This is why most people don’t like hipsters in the first place." http://archives.jrn.columbia.edu/2010/nyrm.org/about/index.html notes: "The New York Review of Magazines is an annual magazine published by students at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Victor Navasky, former editor and publisher of The Nation, and Roger Youman, former editor of TV Guide, oversee the magazine." That the magazine was written by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism students who are overseen by reputable journalists Victor Saul Navasky and Roger Youman strongly indicate that the magazine is a reliable source that can be used to establish notability.  The article notes: "The idea was the brainchild of Filter magazine, a discriminating new-music pub whose creators rarely hesitate to think outside the page, so to speak. 'We'd been putting together music samplers for Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie,' says publication cofounder Alan Miller. 'Filter Magazine TV seemed like the next natural step.' ... For now, Filter Magazine TV remains commercial-free, though this could change in the near future. Like most other publishers, Miller claims that Filter's advertising is 'seamless' and even appreciated by readers. Inserting ads into the preshow video presentations, however, could raise the ire of fans already bombarded with ads before movies and in other formerly ad-free venues." I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine TV to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine because it is one of the subject's products. <li> The article notes: "FILTER Magazine has made quite a reputation for itself in delivering premier artists and uncovering new talent each year with its Culture Collide festival. This year, the celebrated even returns to Los Angeles’ Echo Park for its fourth year, running October 9-12, and features Phoenix, Dinosaur Jr, Liars, The Raveonettes and more. Culture Collide's multi-day experience celebrating creative curiosity stretches across some of LA’s most renowned and intimate venues, where attendees are bound to discover their new favorite international band, as well as FILTER’s own favorite headliners, artists, comedians, industry experts and more." I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine.</li> <li> The article notes: "For those without an airline ticket to some far off land this weekend, the international sounds have come to Echo Park with Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival, a multi-day super-eclectic music event that features 80 artists from 24 countries and is taking over a two-block stretch of clubs and venues. Now in its second year, the festival is a rare opportunity to see the catchy Danish pop band the Asteroids Galaxy Tour, Australia's Cameras -- or even recently reformed East Coast indie band Clap Your Hands Say Yeah." I consider significant coverage about Filter Magazine's Culture Collide Festival to be significant coverage of Filter Magazine.</li> <li> The article notes: "The superstar singer-DJ was a headline panelist Thursday at the kickoff event of FILTER Magazine's Culture Collide, a three-day celebration of international music, film, art, food, beverages and all-around global consciousness in Los Angeles' trendy Echo Park neighborhood. In its fourth year, Culture Collide features more than 25 international music acts, running the gamut from Denmark's Raveonettes to Australia's Miami Horror; from the UK's Fuck Buttons to even some homegrown American talent, including Bleached, the Liars and Mystery Skulls."</li> <li> The article notes: "In an age when music publications are folding left and right, FILTER magazine soldiers on with five full issues and five Good Music Guides per year. The content of the publication is driven by its tagline, 'Good music will prevail,' and recent features have included everything from a major interview and photo essay with Morrissey to a nine-page spread about the history of Slayer. FILTER is one of the few major music magazines based out of Los Angeles, so their coverage of the local scene is a bit deeper than that of many other media outlets. LAist recently sat down with FILTER Editor-in-Chief Pat McGuire to chat about Morrissey, the rapidly changing magazine market and the unlikely road McGuire took on his way to becoming editor."</li> <li> The article notes: "Miller and Sartirana, both former record-label employees, originally teamed to publish Filter magazine, since 2001, a Los Angeles-based glossy intended to 'turn people on to artistically credible music,' Miller said. Each issue—editorial content clearly distinct from marketing, he stressed—features a CD sampler of songs and related advertising meant to appeal to the forward-looking consumers FCG clients aspire to reach."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Filter to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for additional review of sources Nakon  21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Cunard, we had already established a few points earlier in the discussion that raise issues with your sources. The New York Review of Magazines is a publication not of the New York Times but of Columbia University.  College publications are not considered RS per {{WP:USERG]] - it doesn't matter that the website is overseen - the material isn't credited to "credentialed members of the site's editorial staff" (which is what the policy requirement is).  I'd also point out that a circulation of 85,000 is very, very small in a city of 8.4 million.  We also established earlier that Filter the magazine is not Filter Creative Group - the magazine is a subsidiary of FCG, and the Collide Festival is another.  That's made pretty clear in the Adweek blurb.  Therefore, coverage of FCG in the context of the festival is not synonymous with the magazine.  LA Times, Crave Online, and those articles where the focus is the festival, will not establish notability for the magazine, because there is no in-depth coverage of the magazine.  When the extent of the mention, by the way, is one line, there's no way you're going to sell that as "substantial coverage." The interview with McGuire (the editor-in-chief) isn't independent of the source, so it can't be used to establish notability.  So what's left other than the Billboard article? MSJapan (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:USERGENERATED doesn't say anything about college publications. College publications with an editorial staff are not user-generated or self-published sources. Student papers have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 11 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46, and it is clear that college publications are not user-generated sources. In many cases, a college newspaper like the Columbia Daily Spectator might be considered insufficient to establish notability because it is student-run. However, The New York Review of Magazines is different. It is overseen by veteran journalists including Victor Saul Navasky, who was the editor of The Nation between 1978 and 1995. This sets it apart from typical student publications. Furthermore, the magazine is not written by undergraduates. It is written by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism students. This again sets it apart from typical student publications. Based on these two points, I believe that the magazine is reliable and can be used to establish notability. CraveOnline noted "FILTER Magazine has made quite a reputation for itself in delivering premier artists and uncovering new talent each year with its Culture Collide festival." Since the Culture Collide festival was run by Filter at the time, the festival is part of Filter{{'}}s history. Significant coverage about the festival therefore can be used to establish notability for Filter. {{user|NinjaRobotPirate}} mentioned this point above. Likewise, significant coverage by MediaPost Communications about Filter Magazine TV is another source about Filter{{'}}s product and history, so can be used to establish notability. Quote from the article: "The idea was the brainchild of Filter magazine, a discriminating new-music pub whose creators rarely hesitate to think outside the page, so to speak."  The LAist source is an interview, so the interview portion cannot be used to establish notability. However, in my above comment I quoted two paragraphs from the non-interview portion written by the article's author about the magazine. Those two paragraphs are independent material and cover Filter "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Notability).  The Billboard article is a very strong source because Billboard does not cover the shuttering of every music magazine. That Billboard found Filter{{'}}s closure significant enough to write in detail about strongly establishes notability.  In sum, there are multiple reliable sources about Filter. Billboard and The New York Review of Magazines cover Filter in significant detail. MediaPost Communications, the Los Angeles Times and CraveOnline review Filter{{'}}s festival Culture Collide. MediaPost Communications discusses Filter Magazine TV in detail. Filter passes Notability.  Cunard (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep saying sources are notable, and your reasoning is spurious. You keep saying coverage is notable, and it isn't.  Why?  Because you can't make a sweeping generalization about what Billboard does and does not cover, and therefore assert notability because of that.  You have no idea, unless you have read every issue of Billboard ever, about the level of coverage they do or do not maintain.  You cannot say that the person who oversees a publication makes the publication notable, or that the type of student who writes it makes it notable.  It's still a local student publication no matter which way you slice it.  As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if you want to call this RS, the statement by the writer "if you can find it" is almost as solid a statement for non-notability as I could get.  You also seem to think that it makes sense for a magazine to have an idea, when in fact, it's the two guys behind it, the festival, and the parent company, which are three different entities who did.  You can't derive inherited notability from a statement that no one is going to take at face value.  Filter Magazine TV in Mediapost is not Filter Magazine. Ten articles on the festival that say "created by Filter Magazine" does not make the magazine notable even if it were true;  you cannot use coverage of the festival to inherit notability for the magazine, period, because they are not the same entity.  Even if they were, that's like saying Vans is notable for the Warped Tour, which they aren't; they're notable for making shoes. You need to read the sources for depth of content, not just a mention of the magazine, and you need to filter out repetitive and unrelated content.  When you do that, you get "local small-circulation music magazine published for a period of time, and closed.  Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine."  We don't know who was in the magazine, we don't know what they did in the magazine, we don't know if anyone cared about the magazine, and so on and so forth.  We have a lot of namedropping, and namedropping from a related entity doesn't constitute notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not say the sources are notable. I say the sources are reliable and discuss Filter and its products such as Filter Magazine TV and the Culture Collide Festival so establish notability. I have provided sources showing a clear linkage between Filter and its products which conflict with your view that Filter Magazine TV and Culture Collide Festival are "Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Besides what Cunard found above, there's this writeup in Billboard, which calls Filter "one of the most active unofficial media brands at SXSW".  I think there's enough to establish notability for Filter here.  Or, if not specifically Filter itself, then Filter Creative Group, which seems to be the parent group.  A requested move can decide which entity the article should focus on.  Some of the coverage is a bit light, and some of it is of their dissolution, but there's enough of it to convince me that we should keep this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - After looking at the various sources linked above, this looks to pass WP:GNG. (Seems also worth mentioning, although this hardly confers notability in its own right, that it's been established as a reliable source for use on Wikipedia). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * Keep This article has received plenty of in-depth coverage from more than one reliable source, and clearly passes GNG.  Omni Flames  {{sup| let's talk about it }} 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are persuasive in establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (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.