Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Illumination 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn.  Jamie ☆ S93  22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Public Illumination Magazine

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

I can find little evidence of independent coverage from a couple of google searches. According to this the name of the magazine's editor is Zagreus Bowery, which would seem to bring up blatant WP:COI issues with User:Zagreus (contribs), the article's creator.  Litho  derm  16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — Litho  derm  16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm not to sure about the notability of Jeffrey Isaac or Stefan Roloff. They seem to be more notable than this magazine but they were edited by the same contributors, so I thought I'd mention them here.  Litho  derm  16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Took a look at the article and searched for some sources.  Gbooks and Gscholar returned some relevant coverage, arguably thin, though still acceptable RS.  Found a short notice at the New York University Library website.  The German Wikipedia had a link to a 28th anniversary mention in a Los Angeles Times books blog.  Modified the article accordingly.  I would say this earns them a page in Wikipedia, clear pass for RS and GNG.  Isn't it about time that we start to relate primary to the merits of the article itself, and less to the circumstances of the contributions.  Sure, seems likely that we should be alert to possible COI issues, as judged from name of article creator alone.  But it is not a concealed COI. More importantly, there is no evidence of NPOV violations whatsoever in the article.  IMO, only a desperate and hallucinating salesman would give the entry advertising value.  As such, I consider the COI issue to be a marginal one, and as I read the nomination rationale, I think it has (wrongly) been the principal concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I only meant that in deciding to create the article, the author would be more likely to decide that the subject was notable if they were affiliated with that subject. I'm looking at the motivation of the creator, rather than the content of the article. It seems to me that a subject would be less likely to be notable if no one outside the organization that is the subject was interested enough in it to write about it. You're right that this is irrelevant to a certain extent, as even if there were issues with the content it could be rewritten. It's just that I come across a large number of articles like this, so I like to put them up and get other people's opinion on their value. The Moma collection convinces me. I'm withdrawing the nomination, and I intend to trim out that long list of "subjects".  Litho  derm  02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else already axed the list. Thanks.  Litho  derm  02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although this is a tricky one. (I haven't been able to find "tiny size" anywhere in the WP notability guidelines). The Gbooks hits are too thin for significant coverage and the LA times blog was written by someone who also wrote for PIM i.e. not independent of the subject. What swayed me is the mention of authorship by Basqiat, Haring and others, and that it is collected at MOMA and the Pompidou, in the LA Times blog. Presuming that the latter is a reliable source, I think this is a case where the formal requirements are not fulfilled but the subject is still notable. N.b: I agree with the NPOV assessment of Power.corrupts Enki H. (talk) 00:13, 10 June 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.