Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NME covers (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

List of NME covers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate is an understatement. There is no inherent notability to this collection of information. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable being covered in works such as New Statesman and The Guardian and book-length histories such as The History of the NME. Warden (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of the NME cover, with context, might be notable. A chronological list of whoever happened to appear on the cover each week is indiscriminate and is not notable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not indiscriminate in a general sense because the format and content is quite tightly scoped. The list is long but I don't consider it sprawling because the chronological sequence makes it easy to locate periods of interest and the blue links to the artists are easy to browse and skim.  The sources above indicate that this material is of interest to music journalists.  For their field of popular music, this seems to be a significant marker of status and trends, and so is comparable with other pages such as List of covers of Time magazine. Warden (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your arguments seem to be along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL. If it was a discussion about trends, and why certain artists appear more than others, and appearances at peaks of their popularity, based on secondary coverage in reliable sources, then there is some encyclopedic value.  As a chronological list it does not do this, and thus is not encyclopedic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL doesn't apply because Warden explains why it's useful: "Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless". Warden does that. Just throwing around policy names without explaining or understanding them isn't helpful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Moreover, WP:USEFUL isn't a policy; it's just an essay.  If you want a relevant policy, that would be WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But you don't show how this list meets notability guidelines, and how it isn't just an indiscriminate list of everyone who has ever appeared on the cover of the NME. Where's the context?  How is this list "a significant marker of status and trends"?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already produced adequate evidence. You're the nominator trying to make a case here and I am currently not persuaded.  Firing off a lot of questions isn't helping as we shall not be bringing you another shrubbery. Warden (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous AfD. This is not indiscriminate information, and it is a notable topic. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous deletion discussion was not a "keep", but a "no consensus". You need to demonstrate how it is notable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sourcing shows this is a topic that is discussed in reliable third party sources. I understand the noms position and there are arguments either way but I think it does more harm than good to delete. Magazine covers can "define their era" as the Guardian says of some of these, covers show cultural trend, as some of the sources discuss, it makes perfect sense to give a complete chronological list. I think the list could be in 3 or 4 columns to make it more compact, but it's not excessive in length. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2013 (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.