Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Passion 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Paris Passion magazine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Orphaned article about a magazine. A search for information on the magazine does not bring up much to establish notability, simply information that the magazine existed. The359 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: article is highly encyclopedic. WP:SOFIXIT. Ottre 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The question here is notability. How is it highly encyclopedic? The359 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly encyclopedic as a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine, but besides that, how does launching Sarner's career not make it notable? Also, once again, I don't see why you would expect any links to the page. It's been out of print for almost two decades. Ottre 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine doesn't make it notable. Claiming it started the career of someone requires at the very least some sort of notability for that person, and being out of print is hardly an excuse for having an orphaned article. The359 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, but wrong anyway. Sarner is a very notable former editor of the Jerusalem Post, apparently still contributes the occasional article to Canadian newspapers. That's very much up for debate, and you still haven't explained your line of thinking RE other magazines which predate the Internet. Ottre 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Defunct magazines. Feel free to pick through, I'm sure you'll find many of them have incoming links.  This does not however help to establish the notability of the article in question. The359 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A two part query then, if you would, to save me some time.


 * Firstly, just to confirm we're on the same page: I didn't say it was "inherently notable (and therefore encyclopedic) as it is a cosmopolitan lifestyle magazine." Its coverage makes it "clearly encyclopedic as a..."


 * Following on from that, don't you agree there is a pretty clear intersection of Paris/Parisian culture with most other international magazines? In my opinion, this is particularly true when speaking about older glossy magazines, but it applies here as well. General interest titles will naturally be linked to a lot more than anything catering to cosmopolitan lifestyle, but that doesn't make it any less encyclopedic RE magazines of the 1980s, right? For instance, you don't know whether they put out any influential articles on the French photography scene which was booming in the late 1980s. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What the magazine covers does not make it notable. The magazine itself has to be notable, not the Paris culture.  I don't know if they put out any articles of note because I found nothing much about the magazine in my search, and you nor anyone else has yet to provide any actual references to this magazine which make it notable.  Please see WP:Reliable sources.  Word of mouth of its supposed importance isn't enough. The359 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem... Already returning to your first point? Aren't you admitting the lack of inbound links means nothing? Proof of readership exists in the cover scans, international distribution can easily be verified. That satisfies most criteria for inclusion of print media publications, given its coverage. Further notability is conferred via the respect Sarner has demonstrably gained in the industry. Ottre 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable references has nothing to do with having no incoming links from elsewhere on Wikipedia. You seem to have two concepts confused.  You've yet to actually demonstrate anything about Sarner or this magazine, except by word of mouth.  Show a reference already! The359 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one conflating article importance with notability. For the record although WP:WikiProject Magazines is dead, it's safe to say anybody would have ranked it as mid- importance without any official guidance. I still maintain the article is highly encyclopedic.


 * Your concerns about unverifiable claims should be taken to the talk page. Ottre 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye carumba...


 * From WP:Notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Your claim of "highly encyclopedic" is useless without reliable sourcing.  Your opinion on the magazine does not make it notable enough for Wikipedia.  This is why the article is up for deletion, because it does not appear to fulfill notability criteria due to its lack of sources and a lack of any indepedent sourcing elsewhere that seems to not only back the claims of the article, but also establish it as something notable enough for an article in the first place.  The359 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, even after thousands upon thousands of AfD discussions which support the keeping of unreferenced but verifiably encyclopic articles, WP:COMMONSENSE should now be seen as secondary to WP:N?
 * If you insist on moving to delete per "WP:V", what constitutes significant coverage of an English-language magazine that covered the cosmopolitan lifestyle in Paris during the 1980s?
 * Ottre 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles can be verified encyclopedic if they are established as such by outside references. Please point me to any AFDs for unreferenced, questionably notable articles that ended in Keep which did not include editors including outside references in order to support their opinion of Keep?  This article was nominated for lack of notability due to a lack of sources establishing its notability, either in the article or in a general search outside Wikipedia.  It says so right at the top. The359 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Cool Hand Luke recently voted to keep SLUG Magazine as it obviously had significant readership (lasted twenty years), although he didn't turn up any WP:RS as far as I am aware. That article still fails WP:V three months later. Ottre 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What happens at other AFDs is not relevant. The discussion should focus on this article and its merits. -- Whpq (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one out of literally hundreds of entirely relevant examples. This "discussion" ended on March 2. Ottre 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think there are many people who would like to know more about expatriate English-language publishing in Paris, which has a time-honored history. Given that Paris Passion was one of the most successful examples of this, and that it featured the work of hundreds of writers, photographers and illustrators (many of them quite accomplished) during the 1980s, it would seem to have a valid place in Wikipedia. Also, as its name indicates, the magazine was all about Paris, a city that always commands such enormous interest around the world.


 * I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "notable" according to your definition, but Paris Passion existed for almost 10 years and was widely known far beyond just France.


 * I was also confused over the debate in the 'discussion log' over the aspect of the career of Passion's founding Editor/Publisher Robert Sarner. I did not see the text about the magazine as being about "starting the career of Sarner..." as one of you stated. He's mentioned simply because he was the founder of Paris Passion and was at the helm of the magazine for most of its existence. Care1986 11:33, 2 March 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Care1986 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: Because I have already voted here, and prefer to remain an uninvolved party given the COI problems which will probably be raised, I haven't updated the article. My research also suggests that there is no reason to include the Roots Canada article in the encyclopedia, but I will wait until this discussion has been closed before nominating it for deletion. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Comment: Closing admin please note, have changed the above to reflect a vote for keeping the article. Ottre 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Closing admin - please note I have reverted Ottre's edit. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD.  AFD is not a vote, and the admin will consider the arguments and opinion on the comment as it stands. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The magazine predates the widespread use of the Internet, so sources may not be available through googling. However, the demise of the magazine was worth writing about for the Witchita Eagle.  Other mentions such as, , , ,  suggest there is notabilty, and more sources could be found although not necessarily online. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (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.