Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tart (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Tart
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Probably a speedy candidate (G4 - recreation of deleted material) as this has previously been deleted following an AfD discussion. That was last year hence the renomination but if anything the publication has become less notable, going from printed format to online only. Ros0709 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See no major reason for the deletion. National coverage (eg The Times report) is noteworthy; the publication in general has actually become more 'renowned' amongst British universities since it's online switch. I see no reason under the reasons for deletion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion - which these article contravenes. Perhaps the suggested alternative - deletion of some of the latter sections, and improvement of the article? Don't believe it falls foul of the notability crieteria either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability RuiRed —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

The Tart is of definite notability. I am an editorial assistant at The Independent and the publication is well known in journalist circles as one of the most impressive startups in recent years. Indeed, the only reason we have never featured it is that our editor finds the satirical material too controversial for our paper's mandate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.143 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Tart is certainly notable, as evidenced by the coverage in three publications which all have their own wiki pages (The Times, the Epigram and Cherwell). Also your point "the publication has become less notable, going from printed format to online only" is entirely unfounded. The paper always had a supporting website, and while it's current webzine format is anticipated to be a temporary one before a return to print format, it has grown in popularity at a rapid rate in the last few months, under new editors. It still has a massive presence at several of Britain's top universities, especially when you consider that both the editors and the writing team attend numerous different institutions. Jm6852 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Keep - Notability established by coverage in third party media. But like many articles put up for deletion it could do with some work Francium12 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete The problem is not the sources or the notability, but the content: "currently enjoying success in its format as an online webzine"; "the focus of the paper switched to its current webzine format where it has thrived."; " a decision was made to concentrate on a webzine, which has steadily grown in popularity". Reads like a corporate briefing to secure more funding. Change to Keep: Article has been edited since my comments. Notability is established by third party sources.--Jmundo (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The Tart page seems to have been edited since the above comment as it no longer features the above mentioned 'corporate' slant or the quotes included. I first read about The Tart in 'le cool' a London based cultural magazine and have heard it being discussed in several media circles since, suggesting it is certainly notable, within the industry and beyond. 92.23.143.167 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems like a perfectly good little stub. It has plenty of good cites - including trade papers and The Times of London. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 15 December 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.