Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Kickboxer 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.  Sandstein  15:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

International Kickboxer Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article lists no independent sources and my search also found no significant coverage by independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nominator - only references are an advertising requests page and the home page of its parent company.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into a parent article Blitz Publications & Multi-Media Group, there is another stub, Blitz Magazine and the publisher owns several more magazines. There are a small amount of internal-links back to these articles. The FaceBook page for International Kickboxer Magazine has 39,000 followers and the Google Page Rank for the website it 4/10 (respectable).  There really should be some sort of exception for boutique publishers, much like WP:ACADEMIC.  Publishers are not likely to write about, nor even mention their competition, so most of these otherwise WP:RS sources are not likely to meet WP:N for organizations, but circulation (especially hard-copy)  and longevity can be notable aspects in themselves in this Internet age.  In terms of writing articles, blue-links are very handy for keeping articles compact. AKA, I don't have to explain to the reader that, "International Kickboxer Magazine  is the world’s leading and longest-running kickboxing and Muay Thai magazine." 009o9 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Self-promoting claims don't show notability without independent support.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage of this magazine and it makes no sense to redirect to an article that doesn't exist yet.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not so much this stub I'm concerned with. I just feel that publishers should have their own guidance. WP:NPUBLISHING (a failed proposal) does not discuss the shortcoming in the guidance that local boutique publishers experience. Much like WP:ACADEMIC, their notability relies upon their research, which is primary in relation to their own topic. Academics are judged upon whether their work is cited in other publications -- generally a passing mention. The properties that are generally notable about a publisher is, longevity, circulation in relation to genre and outside investment/purchases. The parent firm also owns Women's Health and Fitness and has 105,328 readers which is a little larger than the Miami Herald. New guidance on the subject could also help determine which college newspapers are RS.  Cheers 009o9 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional There is guidance at WP:PERIODICAL (an essay), but it looks like the essay was modified to suggest that only academic periodicals are welcome. The original verbiage took circulation and years of publication (10) into consideration. Archive copy Apparently, these were simply removed as a bold edit, during a discussion without closing consensus. WP:JOURNALCRIT (an essay) also provides guidance on this topic. 009o9 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability (media) is another essay which looks like it had a little momentum last year. 009o9 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One problem is that these are, at best, essays (and seem to be failed ones at that) and don't carry the full weight of an SNG. The second problem is that even an SNG is secondary to the GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not see one of the three that had a RfC. Notability (media) is the most complete and actually has a section for magazines, but I think it also overstep  its bounds because it has static lists included in it that the Wikiprojects may change along the way. For instance, NBOOKS is very active and does not require anything more than a see main article hat. I'm thinking of proposing that a magazine, with a continuous ten year history or more AND a large paid circulation base for its genre should be considered for notability. Apparently, there are official databases where this information is available (Audit Bureau of Circulations).  It is also probably more appropriate (in my opinion) to collect the magazine articles under the parent publisher with redirects rather than maintain half a dozen stubs. The discussion in Notability (media) is structured after what was accomplished in WP:ACADEMIC which is a widely accepted additional guidance.  Thanks for your input on this   Papaursa. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * COI Disclosure: None, my interest in a finished guideline and this article is as a volunteer and uncompensated. (This requirement gets really tiresome and easy to forget) 009o9 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 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.