Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novi magazin


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Novi magazin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. References are all just in-passing mentions. It is only 5-years old, so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable magazine at this point; a passing or local interest at best. Kierzek (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from a native speaker: they have some big journalist names there, and seem to have decent content (see e.g. the mention in Ashwood University), but they really didn't make a big breakthrough on the market. I'd wish to vote "keep" for a semi-notable magazine, but I struggle to find a policy-based reason. No such user (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * just to make certain that you are aware that you can bring sources in Serbian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * sources Here, an analyst at Balkan Insight describes it as a, "Serbian economics weekly.". B92 interviews the staff pretty frequently, can certainly validate tht it is a "Belgrade-based weekly.". E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * keep this is a widely-cited national News magazine. Serious media trust it enough to cite its coverage (Wall Street Journal, L'Express.  There is no problem with promotion; it is functional to be a place where readers can validate that a magazine they see cited somewhere is a real news source.  I say tag it for better sourcing and keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . They are indeed a serious political magazine with a moderate impact (honestly, I didn't hear of them before this AFD, but your news search is reassuring). A general problem with news outlets is that they are often cited or mentioned in passing, but are seldom written about – news outlets just don't write about other news outlets unless a major event occurs – so that we can establish policy-based notability and write a piece based on independent sources. I feel that the bar in WP:NPERIODICAL is set a bit too high, so I'd !vote keep per IAR, if anything. No such user (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, I appreciate your efforts.However, the sources you give just mention the magazine in passing. At most, they establish some notability for the persons being cited. Also, as says, none of the sources provides any material on which to base article content. I don't think that the sources provided establish notability, but even if it did, we still have nothing that we car actually say about this magazine in a verifiable way. Notability is not enough for an article... --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about Wikipedia users. I'm a Wikipedia user; I sometimes create media stubs because WP doesn't have an article on  a magazine/broadcast channel that I've never heard of before and need to know something about. Function fail for Wikipedia.   If my search happens to produce  a really solid source, I create a quick stub, see: Kuruc.info.  To me, and to many users, even skeleton information on Wikipedia  (if reliably sources, as with this article) is useful (date founded, city where located, validation that it exists and is cited by RS) is of some use.  It has the function of separating the wheat of real publications from the chaff of crank sources made up to look like real publications.   This article does that.  Sometimes, having tried to find a referenced publication and discovered that it is a real publication that lacks a WP article, I create a stub, like The Daily Nonpareil.  (revisiting just now, I was surprised by how good that article is.  I remembered creating a naked stub.  But Lo, an editor cameth along and improved it.)  It is always my hope that creating or keeping a stub will encourage other editors to expand and source.   The Miami Times, however, is still the stub I created.  I reference it because, by the standard you are upholding here, we need to delete not only Novi magazin and The Miami Times, but at least half of the bluelinked newspapers listed in African-American newspapers.  WP:COMMONSENSE keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But the little we have in there is sourced. It verifies that the newspaper exists, who are its editors, and that they received a minor award. I could add a few minor details, such as Sonja Licht having written op-eds for the magazine, or dig out a list of important journalist names who have written for the magazine. E.M.Gregory has shown that their articles have been cited, in passing, by several respectful news outlets. To add, they have been cited in a number of books. We are missing an independent coverage about the magazine itself indeed, but as I said, news outlets just don't write extensive pieces about other news outlets. I acknowledge this is a shortcoming, but if you scan a large number of articles about lesser newspapers, you're unlikely to find much better sourcing. No such user (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feeling behind your arguments, but basically your are arguing WP:INHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I did some research and added to the article. Their link with the controversial businessman Miroslav Bogićević has been noted in several respected sources, albeit not in too much detail (the Vreme most extensively). Their articles are just so often cited and quoted to justify notability alone. WP:OSE notwithstanding, I randomly clicked few entries in Category:British news magazines and sourcing is hardly any better. For example, 40-year-old New Internationalist has only one Guardian article, UTNE Media Awards website and one Mother Jones as independent sources, everything else is based on references from NI itself. Not that I condone it, but finding third-party references about media can be a tough job. No such user (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No such user makes a valid point that cannot be dismissed as mere other stuff exists. The point is that an established magazine is is ENCYCLOPEDIC.  It may take time to grow the article, but deleting a magazine the existence and impact of which is verified would be  destructive to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

*totally off topic question Is there a place where I could list African-American newspapers as a really useful place where American high school/university faculty in quest of a class project could direct the energy of history students. The information on historic black newspapers (and historic American ethnic newspapers; historic big city and small town newspapers now defunct) exists. It would be great to have these papers documented, by classes learning research skills as they study American history).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the article has multiple RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 18 August 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.