Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homocore (zine)


 * 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   keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Homocore (zine)

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

Non notable publication, no sources. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 17 years ago a zine existed for seven issues.  Not sufficient notable by a long way.   Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article does read like an advert. No doubt. There may be sources available for cleanup, but search will be difficult because of a punkrock band by that same name.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I've added references and another link and expanded on notability issues in the article. As well, it should not be redirected to a list of pornographic magazines, since it wasn't a pornographic magazine: it contained no pornography, and it was a zine, not a magazine Intheshadows (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of third-party sources that reveal anything substantial about the subject--there's some COI issues here also, as the language reveals. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is lacking for this less-than-fabulous bygone zine. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and set a redirect to List of pornographic magazines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That list literally has no information about this magazine except a link to the nominated title. A redirect should not be put in place without merging first. Propaniac (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And see page Homocore. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm convinced, in part by the recently added information, that the topic is notable. Propaniac (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick cleanup for any COI or advertspeak is all this article needs. The notability of something is not defined by how long ago something existed, nor by how long it lasted. The zine helped to spawn a notable and influential underground music scene, sources are present in the article, and there was absolutely nothing remotely "pornographic" about its content unless you're in the "any mention whatsoever of homosexuality is inherently pornography" camp of belief — and Wikipedia kowtowing to that interpretation of reality would violate WP:NPOV. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)\
 * Keep Article could be improved, but support for notability should be findable.--Larrybob (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep CJCurrie (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What needs to be included is INFLUENCE AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. Although the zine was short lived, its connections to Pansy Division (for instance, I am guessing), the homocore movement, and so on make it important.  Links to articles about its influence and cultural significance would make the page relevant to the encyclopedia format. Jdubowsky (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Additional source material is available and will improve content. This zine was hugely popular during its initial publication and has historical significance in the development of queer zines as a genre. Was political in nature with music reviews and reader submitted content, was not pornographic. --ChrisQZAP (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2008 (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.