Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight No Chaser (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   no consensus to delete, default to keep. Neıl   ☄   11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight No Chaser (magazine)

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

weak assertion of notability, minimal secondary sources provided  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article was nominated for AFD on 31 August, but I somehow failed to list it on the 31 August AFD log page. It is now listed on the 4 September log page.   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No meaningful evidence of notability provided, none found. Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The following were easily found, which between them demonstrate that the magazine is significant:, , , , , . Article needs improvement, but I see no good reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - (1) tells us it was "a fiercely independent magazine aimed at the jazz, jive and soul aficionado", not significant coverage. (2) is a bare mention. (3) is a blog (posted by the mag's Editor+ Publisher, no less), not a reliable (or independent) source. (4) is also a blog. (5) is open source (wiki-like) and not a reliable source.(6) is also a blog. The point here is simple, we need substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. We don't have it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. (5) isn't a wiki - the fact that their content is under a GNU licence is irrelevant. I'm not convinced the others you labelled as blogs are all blogs. Yes, the article should have better sources, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable.--Michig (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - (5) is, per itself, "our approach is purely subjective.... Some of these periodicals are... smaller and obscure, virtual even.... Visitors to the Chimurenga Library can join the conversation but adding comments and updating information." Yes, it's opensource. Which of the blogs do you not think is a blog? The lack of reliable sources is exactly what we are discussing here: "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Once again, content licenced as open source can be copied elsewhere - the article in question does not appear to be editable. Open source and wiki are not the same thing by a long chalk. The article has only existed for a week - how about tagging it as needing better references rather than trying to delete it? This suggests it had a circulation of 100,000 copies worldwide, and it's easily verifiable that it was published for 19 years - sounds to me like something we should have an article on.--Michig (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - (5) says you can edit it, you say you can't. Great: who wrote the text at (5)? All we can say is it presents itself as something that may have been written by just about anyone. Long story short, (5) self-indicates that it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- it's "purely subjective". It isn't saying SNC is meaningfully notable -- it might be "smaller and obscure, virtual even". Based on its own description, I cannot begin to imagine the the source in question is reliable. Failing all that, you argue SNC might be notable, we might find sources, etc. Heck, we might find reliable sources discussing the pebble stuck in my sneaker. Until then, it's discussed at length in my blog... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok. Cheers. I couldn't find any way of editing that article, but I'm sure you must be right. I didn't find anything better after 5 minutes of Google searching. It must be a small and obscure publication despite a 19 year history and 100,000 circulation, so let's delete it (Not). --Michig (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The magazine is mentioned, however, in this book as one of the niche music publications that the author considered worthy of inclusion.--Michig (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think there can be any doubt that El Mundo and the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz  are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As with Michig's last comment above, neither one is more than a mere mention. We're looking for "substantial coverage in reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsummermsw (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 September 2008
 * Delete due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (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.