Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor 7th


 * 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   redirect to Minor seventh. Seems to be consensus to redirect/delete; no one has opposed the redirect to the musical interval, which seems helpful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor 7th

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found no reliable sources covering this. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't find the nomination to be useful to prepare a community discussion.  Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent.  There are no sources on the article itself, the article was created in January 2008 and has had a quiet history, with only one brief comment on the talk page.  The topic is not listed at Worldcat.org.  There is no press page on the topic's website that would make our job easier.  The topic has no Google news hits.  I tried various Google searches to confirm the facts in the article without success, for example [+"Alan Fark" +"Minor 7th" -wiki -wikipedia 1999].  There are Google hits that mention the site in various ways and the topic seems legit.  It appears to have remained stable for over ten years, which is an indicator of notability.  If a topic fails notability, we then need to consider if there are appropriate targets for merger.  This is the point where I looked at the "What links here", which is an area that needs attention.  Looking at two links, one is an incorrect link needing the musical interval, and one is a legitimate link to the article.  At this point, I'm posting my findings without a recommendation.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles need not be "high risk" to be nominated for AfD. Anything any editor believes to fail any of the criteria for necessitating a full article can be nominated  p  b  p  03:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments sound odd. I said that it fails WP:WEB which starts the discussion on the topic's notability per WP:WEB. I don't need to type a long drawn out explanation. Why do you think that articles should be high risk? Existing for a long time is not an indicator because coverage is. You said yourself that you found no coverage so not having a position is odd as well. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic. If I may ask, did you follow step B5 of WP:BEFORE, to check "What links here"?  Have you done any analysis of possible merge targets?  I was preparing a Delete !vote until I clicked on "What links here"  Either this source is getting used a lot and we are missing the sources we need to show notability, or maybe we need to merge to a notable topic and keep the redirect, or there are a several links that need to be cleaned up.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To the, "Why does a lot of stuff link here?", minor seventh is a common Interval. It's quite possible that many of the things that link there are references to the interval rather than the magazine
 * To the Step B5 of BEFORE, I must remind you that BEFORE is not policy, not a guideline, and not mandatory. The same could be said of Ritzman's AfD triage system  p  b  p  05:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do the searching part of WP:BEFORE, but then again WP:BEFORE isn't required anyway. I don't care about one editor's theory. If Ron gets community consensus, good for him, but he doesn't have that at the moment. I think that Before is usually used to harass good faith editors. That is a part of WP:AFD, but there is no consensus that it should be required despite the many discussions. Maybe there is consensus among inclusionists, but I am not an inclusionist. Until a guideline or policy is created about following Before, there is no reason to harass editors with it. SL93 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: per not having any sources and per even the Google search not being that fruitful p  b  p  03:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Hue  Sat  Lum  22:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no proof that any reliable sources have made themselves known. Also suggest redirect to Minor seventh, the musical term, as a likely search. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero indication of wp:notability.   Zero references. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I presented my high risk/low risk idea in this village pump thread back in June 2010 and my main concern was how admins (or non-admin closing people) should approach an AFD consensus that was apparently against policy and perhaps how it should be dealt with at DRV. It had nothing to do with how AFDs should be argued or what steps the nominator should take before nominating. Also, the article being discussed here would actually be a "medium risk" article due to the possibility of it being used to promote the subject. A Pokemon or an episode of Stargate SG1 would be an example of a "low risk" article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The statements to which you seem to be trying to respond are, "Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent." and "It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic." The source for this statement is archived at Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_89, regarding AfD nominations by either blocked or banned editors, where the statement is dated 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot about that one. In that case the subject was AFDs started by banned editors and last time I checked, SL93 isn't banned. As to how he found such a little known out of the way article, I use to wonder the same thing myself. In SL93's case, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, I think he patrols categories for articles with notability issues and Category:Music webzines and Category:Guitar magazines were just next on the list. The drawback with this approach is that if one of the cats you're patrolling has a lot of articles significantly edited by a single editor, he may mistakenly believe that you are stalking his edits and targeting his (sic) articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid off-site references regarding Wikipedia editors, if it is important for regular editors, the admins need to put it on Wikipedia. Also, please note that WP:TPG states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable per the criteria of WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I could find absolutely no independent coverage of this online magazine. Google search found only self-referential items and of course this article. Google News found no independent mentions at all. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I like TPH's suggestion of a redirect to Minor seventh. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (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.