Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phati'tude Literary 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 delete. I will survey this lot, salt-cellar in hand, when the AfDs are completed. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Phati'tude Literary Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequately sourced. The only references are to the organization's own web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is one of the articles in a walled garden including Gabrielle David. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. G11, (spam). CSD tag removed by in the mistaken believe that an article at AfD cannot be deleted because it is spam. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned at the articles being created by the editors surrounding 2 Leaf Press. As far as I can tell, none of them have disclosed their COI and they've been editing about this since 2012. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing out there to suggest that this magazine is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The magazine exists, but existing does not give notability on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to have ever been any true in-depth coverage of the magazine, nor does it appear to be indexed anywhere that would give notability on here. The article claims that it's won an award, however awards aren't something that automatically give notability on Wikipedia - you first have to show that the award is a notable one. I honestly can't find any record of the magazine winning an award and it's not named on the article or on the magazine website, so I have to assume that it's something that Wikipedia would consider non-notable. As far as the association with notable people goes, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by having an association with notable persons. I looked the magazine up in Ulrichsweb and found nothing to establish notability there either. The majority of places that mention this magazine are typically WP:PRIMARY or they're in places that Wikipedia would not consider a WP:RS, like a self-published website and the type. That this is also one of several very promotional articles written by people who appear to have a strong COI is also a concern in this situation. Since this is already at AfD I'd recommend this just running the course because if this is deleted, this will help prevent recreation, whereas a deletion for G11 would not prevent this at this point in time. I'd recommend against any merging or redirecting at this point in time given that most of the articles relating to IAAS are up for deletion in some form or fashion. If any survive deletion then a redirect could be discussed then, but not before that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much an excellent example of why it's generally a bad idea to edit with a COI and to not seek out help immediately when signing up with Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  01:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete 100% self-sourced and no indication of how that could be fixed. Fails WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above & don't use wikipedia for advertising --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and the whole 2Leaf spam cluster with it - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy and SNOW Delete because I myself speedied again as G11 since it's blatantly advertorial considering "the organization began to use print-on-demand services and reduced the size of the book to 8”x10”, a cost-effective way that provides the greenest option: it kills no trees, requires very little energy, never goes out of print" is by far the worst. SwisterTwister   talk  02:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, but an AfD close would be a more permanent solution, as technically someone can recreate a G11 article. If someone recreates an AfD'd article that's more easily speedied/deleted. I think that the only one that's not up for AfD are two pages, the publishing company and Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. That last one is the only one that might stand a chance of restoration, but even then the stuff that's happened here makes it more unlikely that it will happen unless someone gets a lot of assistance. I'd recommend that all of the pages related to 2Leaf/IAAS get salted to prevent recreation until the point comes when someone can submit a non-promotional copy that would assert notability. There's a likely possibility that there might be an attempt to restore these, given the amount of times the other promotional articles have been restored. (2Leaf Press - three times, The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS) - twice, Sean Frederick Forbes - once) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 on salting the whole cluster - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 22 September 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.