Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musics (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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Musics (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough sources exist. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree on deletion if we can find a source or two. It ran for four years and many important names in the relevant field were associated with it; this is the kind of article that typifies why I come to Wikipedia -- easily accessible information on something that i would otherwise be ignorant about. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  06:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tentative Keep: This is a valuable resource for Wikipedia to have but I understand the doubts re. lack of sources, and unlike some of the other rock-related articles of this era of which this might be said, this does not deal with a territory that The Times etc. picked up on after the fact. Are there any academic texts available which could back up the claims made here? It's conceivable. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand when someone ways this is a valuable resource. I can understand why you would say that if you knew something about the subject. But as editors, particularly in the context of deletion discussions, we're supposed to evaluate the article, not the subject. An article with no sources is worthless because there's no way to verify whether any of it is true. My approach would be the same if the article were called "George Washington". That's a valuable subject. But unsourced or poorly sourced? No. It has no value. If someone said, "But it's George Washington!" that would not persuade me. Some deprodders give the impression that if a Wikipedia article is deleted, it will lead to starvation or genocide. How many articles does Wikipedia have? Over five million?

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: per WP:NEXIST, the sources don't have to be cited in the article to be counted towards notability. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regretful delete - It's hard to find sources for this because the title ("Musics") is so generic. Searching using the long title I could not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to back up the notability of this magazine and as such it fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As everyone else has already found, it's a hard title to search for. I have found several works citing articles in it - the book Rhythmus: Spuren eines Wechselspiels in Künsten und Wissenschaften, and papers 'MODULATEURS EN ANNEAU ET SAXOPHONE : LE DISPOSITIF D'ECRITURE MIXTE ET L'INTERPRETATION PARTICIPATIVE DANS L'ŒUVRE LE PATCH BIEN TEMPERE II' and 'Indeterminacy, Free Improvisation, and the Mixed Avant-Garde:: Experimental Music in London, 1965–1975' . Far Out Magazine has an article about the launch of the reprint (with some text based on this Wikipedia article??) , and a journal called Poetry Information had a piece about it after the first 3 issues had come out . I tend to think that, if these are findable, there would be more, possibly not digitised, possibly not easily findable because of the rather generic title, but there is certainly  a lot of content here that cannot currently be referenced to independent sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. State of the article notwithstanding, there are clearly sources to be found. The magazine's short-form title does indeed make searches, shall we say, daunting. Nevertheless, there's some discussion of the magazine in this book by David Toop and Chris Atton's introduction to this Routledge-published work on alternative media. I strongly suspect that there are quite a few more sources out there; there was likely some discussion of the title in other music periodicals, but the issues of works like Ear, Coda, and Perpetual Frontier do not appear to be available (much less searchable!) online, although the infuriating tease of snippet view suggests that Coda, at least, had something to say about it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Depending on one's stance towards doctoral dissertations as reliable sources, there's also some discussion of the magazine's influence in this thesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. The article needs significant improvement but the topic belongs in the encyclopedia.  --Lockley (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep enough reliable independent sources as listed above by Squeamish Ossifrage and RebeccaGreen demonstrates the magazine meets the WP notability criteria. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (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.