Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spill 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm not seeing a strong argument to keep, and I am seeing a persuasive argument against redirecting. If a list entry is created at some point, this discussion does not preclude a future redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Spill Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about an online music magazine, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, websites are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by being the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the magazine's own self-published content, either on its own website or on Google Groups copies of it, and the only third-party source is not reliable or GNG-worthy either. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music,  and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Spill's ratings are considered notable for AnyDecentMusic? aggregation. Its three-decade existence, access to chart artists, and use in hundreds of Wikipedia articles suggests some inherent notability. Paulie302 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability requires WP:GNG-worthy sourcing in third party media independent of itself, and that requirement cannot be bypassed by length of existence, access to artists or any other criterion that isn't supported by GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing's pulling up in terms of 3rd party coverage
 * Mach61 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. How do folks feel about a Redirect here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paulie302 above, weak Keep. 30 years of existence for a magazine is very notable, and I see it quoted (I mean, OUTSIDE Wikipedia) as independent reference (see GB). But due to lack of coverage about it that I can see, redirect to List of music magazines would work for me, if we accept to have a non-blue item in that list.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: per nom and my own search for sources. Longevity, good access to musicians, and the fact that the publication is an RS does not establish notability. Redirecting to List of music magazines would not be appropriate because the list criterion for that list is notable music magazines. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:14, 19 December 2023 (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.