Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyglot (webzine)


 * 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, with the provision that the list of press releases are removed. Neil  ☎  15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Polyglot (webzine)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was prodded in April, but prod removed by article creator. It is a large article on a webzine, and very detailed; but as there seem to be no external sources given that assert the subject's notability to satisfy WP:RS and WP:N, and as I'm not sure what other criteria than external sources can be used to demonstrate a webzine's need for inclusion in Wikipedia, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. My opinion's neutral. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: For now. I would like to see some more secondary sources, as all of the current ones are from the subjects website.  A quick google search has over 200k hits, and most of them are related to this. - Rjd0060 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There are a number of secondary sources which have been added to the article. The large number of Google hits about the Polyglot webzine (the publisher calls it an "online newsletter") more or less underline its notability in the hobby game industry. Really, "notability" is a subjective issue: there are a large number of articles in the English Wikipedia which arguably have less notability than the one about Polyglot; for instance there are many languages that have fewer living speakers than Polyglot has readers; many of the articles in the Webzines category are of dubious notability by any standard because they serve such niche interests (such as the punk music scene in San Francisco, various arts, literary, and political journals of a non-academic nature, et al); a prime example is the Dutch Progressive Rock Page which is about a niche topic and which isn't even written in English and the Greek Alternative Charts page which is similarly obscure. I am not arguing for the deletion of those articles either because regardless of the numbers in their readership, these niche webzines are notable enough to the people who read them. Webzines, almost by definition, have to be about niche interests and for this reason they will be more notable to their readers than they would be to the general public. Many (if not a majority of) articles in Wikipedia fit this description. There is no reason to delete this article unless numerous other articles of a similar nature (articles which have far fewer references, be they primary or secondary), are deleted as well. The door is already wide open for content such as this. — A lizard 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why did you re-add the very long section titled "Companies whose press releases have been included in Polyglot", which I deleted? Do you feel that it adds to the article? I'm just curious, as we wouldn't normally have a section like this in any other press article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The section attests to the notability of the webzine by indicating the companies that have a connection to it. Many Wikipedia articles about newspapers, magazines, and the like have sections that list at least some of their staff or regular contributors (e.g. The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph which also has a blog section, The West Australian, Gulf Daily News, Prothom Alo, De Standaard, Gazet van Antwerpen, Amandala, Belize Times, The Guardian (Belize), BH Dani, The Globe and Mail has a laundry list of contributors rivaling Polyglot's, Le Devoir, The Gazette (Montreal), National Post, Toronto Star has a huge list of people who are involved with it, Toronto Sun has a current writers list and an "alumni" list that is also very long, Vancouver Sun, El Observador, Haaretz, and many others). Many of these newspapers are not in English and thus are less likely to be read by most readers of the English language Wikipedia, yet their staff and contributors past and present are listed in the articles about them, often in bulleted list form. Other than the editorials, Polyglot's only contributors are hobby game companies so, I think, it is entirely appropriate to list them. As the "news" section of the article attests, these companies have been coming and going with some frequency lately (the article does not state this but the game hobby industry is currently in a turbulent state of transition) so their inclusion here, in a way, documents the recent history of the game hobby industry. Some of the articles on newspapers cited above have these lists in multi-column formats and perhaps it would be best to emulate these in order to make the article less long-looking, I just have to figure out the wiki code for that. :) — A lizard 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the secton title confusing me? I'd have no problem with a "notable contributors" section to this article - or even just a "past contributors" section - but not a "list of companies whose press releases they printed" section. That'd be like a "list of topics written about by the Toronto Star". Also - notability is not inherited; writing about a notable topic doesn't necessarily make the author notable. Being noted does, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is just the section that concerns you, then there is no reason to nominate the entire article for deletion. The article does indeed attest to the webzine having been noted by insiders within the hobby game industry, as do the external sources cited. This is further pointed out on the article's discussion page. The Polyglot webzine has been noted, in other words. The game companies mentioned in that section are Polyglot's contributors. Perhaps shortening that section so that it is in paragraph, rather than bulleted list, form would be a better way to show that the most prominent companies in the game hobby industry consider it to be important for them to make contributing to Polyglot be a part of their marketing efforts. These companies whose product lines are so big and popular that there are entire wikipedia portals about them; if there are multiple articles about Dungeons & Dragons and the company that makes that game, then it follows this is a "notable" topic for Wikipedia; it only follows that a news outlet in which the most important initiatives by that company (and several others like it) are announced on a regular basis is notable as well. — A lizard 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, although the list has to go. Put it in a paragraph or remove it completely; its inappropriate as an article content. The rest of it are quite okay. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The contributors list was re-made in paragraph form and is now substantially shorter; all but one of the companies mentioned have Wikipedia entries of their own. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, very marginal satisfaction of notability. I removed the silly list of press releases they've published. No prejudice against a later renomination if the article doesn't see improvement after a few months. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of notability is alleged by two users who have at the same time advocated the removal of a complete section which most forcefully attests to the article's notability: the list of contributors; that the largest companies in the game hobby, computer, and console game industries regularly use Polyglot as a marketing outlet (and these companies have millions of dollars in assets, whole Wikipedia portals about them, and many of them are publicly traded) consider use Polyglot for marketing their products means, at the very least, that they think the webzine is notable. Removing them severely damages the article's notability, this is circular logic. — A lizard 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it is not circular logic, because the notability of a magazine is not dependent on who sends them press releases (which is what I assume you mean by "contributors", unless demonstrated otherwise). This is simply marketing, which is what companies normally do, and their standards for who gets press releases are not ours. Notability is not, as you seem to believe, transferable. Instead, notability depends on reliable, independent secondary sources who choose to write about the topic. Additionally, I tagged the article with more sources because I think it needs this help. That was a kindness. By removing this tag, I presume you are indicating an unwillingness to take steps to improve the article's sourcing, and so I withdraw my supporting vote above; coupled with your gross misunderstanding of our notability requirements, I no longer have confidence the article will improve. If it survives, I will review in a month or two and consider a renomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, We are members of the Games Publishing Association (GPA) which has 175 business members, Miniatures and Games Manufacturers Association (MAGMA) which has 847 business members, and Games Manufacturers Association (GAMA) which has several hundred game company owners as members and we all regularly use Polyglot as our prime news dissemination newsletter for press releases and the like about our companies. I am shocked that several individuals have chosen to state a lack of notability for this entry, and would cite the following reasons for my dismay.
 * if the objection by the two wikipedians arguing for deletion were to apply these same standards .. nay rules and judgments ... FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY then they would be arguing for the deletion of much of the content contained on wikipedia. I refer to one of these individuals (AllGloryToTheHypnotoad) personal web blog where he states "A dream of mine... take the entire (English language, for me personally) Wikipedia database, and delete all the indie-rock band articles, all the Simpsons articles, and so on; everything to do with pop culture, meaningless crimes, trivia and everything else. Keep all the science, history, engineering, culture, and so on. As I said, only keep those parts that would be useful in the aftermath of a catastrophe." this smacks of censorship and bigoted discrimination and could and should be addressed by the ACLU.
 * Sigh.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also cite the following reasons for keeping the entry: Dhdistro 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read A Lizard's responses to the arguments for deletion and find it sad that arguments stating the importance of the newsletter's service to our industry, member companies, and their employees is being dismissed with the wave of hand - yet other less relevant material is argued for retention by one of these wikipedians and are considered notable and I would add we have reviewed those entries and our members consider that material as not notable and irrelevant for a page in wikipedia. And before you ask... yes we have conducted a quick survey amongst our members on this before I have decided to wade in and argue for keeping the Polyglot entry.
 * Polyglot has been used by our association for the last 3 years in order to reach over 10,000 regular bi-monthly readers. And we have had this number of bi-monthly readers verified by an independent auditing firm.
 * Polyglot has been cited by several of our industry leaders as a recommended source for free dissemination of game and entertainment notable information to hobbyists and aficionados.
 * Comment In any case, it is completely inappropriate that you change other other peoples comments. ]--Tikiwont 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * -- My humble apologizes, I am new to wiki markup code and used the entry above mine as a template for formatting code and then when I previewed it I saw the strike through and; not knowing it meant anything, I removed it as an error and I must have also have inadvertently done it to the entry above mine as it is difficult to edit in the very small editing window for entries that is displayed on my laptop's screen.
 * Dhdistro 16:56, 12 November 2007 (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.