Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Underground Press Syndicate members


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Underground Press Syndicate members

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List of organization members. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:STAND.  ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A note at the end of this article basically admits that many of the publications listed are non-notable in that "membership in the UPS was open to almost any periodical that wanted to join", and most of them "were short-lived and many produced only one or two poorly circulated issues". If this article happens to survive the AfD process, I would at least request that all the street addresses and subscription prices be removed; there's no point in encouraging people to write for a subscription to a newspaper that went out of business almost 40 years ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While it is interesting to browse through the names this is really just raw data, not an article. Borock (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve through normal editing. Approximately 50 of these publications are notable, and the entire list shows an overview of an important journalistic trend of 40 years ago.  Remove street addresses from article keeping city and state/province, uncapitalize publication names except where in original, such as CREEM.  This list is very useful for anyone researching the underground or alternative press movement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need that every entry on a notable list is in itself notable. Notable publications do not cease being notable when they cease publication.  The notability of the journalistic trend this list helps document is indisputable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But if membership in this press syndicate was not selective, it is likely that many of these publications would not even have been notable while they were active. Non-notable publications do not start being notable when they sign up to join a notable yet non-selective organization. Besides, I am not questioning the notability of the underground press as a journalistic trend, just the bare list of its members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says every entry on a list must in itself be notable. The selection criteria is that these publications chose to affiliate themselves with the UPS. Some are clearly far more notable than others, but that is true of almost every list on Wikipedia.  However, (accurate count now) 48 of these publications/organizations are notable enough that they already have articles on Wikipedia.  I have just looked at about 20 of these articles.  In general, these articles are thorough and well referenced, though I am sure every one could be improved in some way.  A large percentage feature an image of a cover of a typical edition.  It may well be that several others on this list may be notable, but do not yet have articles written about them.  I concede that some on the list may be completely non-notable, but this is not a problem.  The list is useful and encyclopedic, and can serve as a resource for editors who want to research and write articles about "underground press" publications that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (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.