Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk Planet


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Punk Planet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable publication, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Respected, long-running publication covered by many RS. Caro7200 (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources exactly? The article has none and does not in any way demonstrate notability. If you have reliable sources that establish notability, please provide them. Mansheimer (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure--and, of course, it is no more an editor's responsibility to provide sources than it is for you to do a BEFORE. To one degree or another: The A.V. Club, Utne Reader, Chicago Tribune, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Reader, Phoenix New Times, Village Voice, Global Punk: Resistance and Rebellion in Everyday Life (book), DIY Punk as Education: From Mis-education to Educative Healing (book), The Nation, Publishers Weekly, Tiny Mix Tapes, MTV, Washington Post. Caro7200 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do these sources provide significant coverage of the subject?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - As User:Caro7200 points out there appear to be several reliable sources addressing, if nothing else, the decision to shut down this publication which, to me, demonstrates notability. That said, I do think the article needs improvement given its near complete lack of sources.  Here are a few potential sources I found in a quick search that could be added to the article:


 * https://www.avclub.com/why-punk-planets-demise-matters-1798211753
 * https://www.punknews.org/article/24230/punk-planet-1994-2007
 * https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/07/punk-planet-magazine-dead-water/
 * https://www.utne.com/community/afondfarewelltopunkplanet

DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I added three references to the article: SPIN Magazine's April 1996 review of the zine, a section in the book Global Punk: Resistance and Rebellion in Everyday Life (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016) and a published collection of Punk Planet interviews, We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet - The Collected Interviews (Akashic Books, 2001). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:Hey on the article and other sources provided. I didn't research them but the chicagotribune.com article seems sufficient. Otr500 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: Thanks to those providing sources. Regarding the "responsibility" mentioned above: Please see WP:Burden, and when the name of a living person (such as here) is involve (biography, related, or just an article with a name drop of someone living), see WP:BLPSOURCES. While I see arguments all the time about performing a WP:BEFORE, please note that not only can some searches be location biased it can be search engine biased, and Zines doesn't appear to attract a lot of mainstream media attention. At any rate, the criteria in Articles for deletion (B. 2 and D. 1 and 2) describes the "minimum search" criteria and what to do if nothing is found or if something is found but is deemed insufficient. However, there is no mandate or any community consensus that an editor state "I have performed a "BEFORE" just that there be "basic due diligence" which is often subjective. Otr500 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect to both you and the nominator, I disagree. "Non-notable publication, no reliable secondary sources" is so vague that it could very well just be the nominator's personal opinion--aside from the fact that it wasn't even "true" to begin with.  AGF, but this nomination was also one of about a dozen by the nominator that appeared in rapid succession. Caro7200 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply : I agree the Nom was possibly arbitrary (I now see multiple AFD listings in the same genre that I had not noticed so thanks) and a WP:BEFORE, in light of the evidence, was likely not performed or possibly with some bias, especially when placing a notability tag then bringing to AFD on the same day.
 * When an article is listed there is typically 7 days unless extended (and it was) so not a lot of time for research. I saw the Nom, and that you added some names as sources, but added verifiable sources. When I performed a search it revealed one reliable source, and I saw  actually added some to the article. They are not close to great, one even WP:primary, but added up there was enough to lead me to consider the subject notable and that a "Hey" was certainly due. An issue that prevented me from echoing a cry of foul was that your statement was not replied to by the Nom, so I had no way of knowing if a "BEFORE" was actually performed (and still don't), but procedures to contest the listing were not initiated. By the time of my involvement the subject was moot but concerns of notability (biased or not) were evident and I believed now resolved.
 * Notability could have been addressed sometimes after 2004 but maintenance often lags real time by an enormous amount. Some espouse that a "presumption of notability" is all that is required and that may suffice as long as notability is not contested. Some espouse that sourcing requirements are not concrete (or even needed) and that AFD is not for cleanup. All I know is that a subject appeared to have dubious notability and that seems to have been shown not to be the case. For all the reasons why we should scream of the injustice of possibly inappropriate AFD listings, article thus Wikipedia improvements can be the result. We have WP:IAR when Wikipedia improvements result and I lean to believe this is applicable for article inclusion as well as exclusion, so I would not be one to argue against this. Otr500 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per notability demonstrated with the sources that have been added since nomination. jp×g 12:16, 23 November 2020 (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.