Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twikker


 * 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 speedy keep: I'm closing this AfD early. It was opened by a user account with no previous edits only 7 days after a previous AfD on the same article and, as with the previous AfD, it has already degenerated into a slagging match between two editors

Twikker


Most other University Rag Mags (and even most university student press) don't have a wiki page, why should Twikker? — Jen Kettle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Changed to neutral. Despite the problems with the nomination (this represents the nominator's only edits), there are notability and verifiability problems here. 300 non-wiki ghits, nothing really interesting. MER-C 05:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is demonstrably no verifiabilty problem as the material in the article has been comprehensibly referenced.
 * Jen Kettle asks, why should Twikkker have a wiki page? It is arguably the archetypal Rag Mag. It is also probably the first Rag Mag (recorded as being published in 1925 and with copies kept in copyright libraries since 1930). There are other reasons too; see the article!
 * I'm not sure how MER-C's ghits are relevant; 'nothing really interesting' is a subjective view; and anyway, ghits show many examples of old Twikkers being traded on eBay so it seems that it is still valued by collectors.
 * Reading MER-C and Jen Kettle's comments, I get the impression that they have not fully read the article and formed a premature conclusion. Ewen 06:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any reliable sources except for the BBC one. Did you? Citing the subject magazine doesn't count. MER-C 06:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't citing the subject magazine count? It is a published source which is available at copyright libraries around the UK. Private eye cites the subject magazine. Deadline magazine has no references at all - implicitly it only references the magazine. Ewen 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source in the context of the article. Reliable sources should be from unrelated third parties. Would you believe a magazine which stated it was the "number one magazine ever" without any evidence? MER-C 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree - and your question ('Would you believe a magazine...?') is an irrelevance. The information taken from the magazines is not self-congratulatory or otherwise doubtful. It is simple statements such as 'The editor in 1947 was...' or 'The introduction in 1988 was written by...'. As I said, (and you have not answered this); in what way are these citations different from the ones in the Private eye article? BTW; We're agreed that the Cambridge Uni Library catalogue is a reliable source, aren't we? Ewen 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral. MER-C 11:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * re: referencing/Private Eye, three of Private Eye's eight references are from itself. seven of Twikkers nine are from itself, and one of the two which isn't is about a rock climb, which is in no way linked to the magazine! L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, your guess is that the rock climb is 'in no way' related to Twikker. My guess is that it is, and I think it's a better guess - can you think of another reason the climb is called 'Twikker'?
 * Sure, the proportion of Private Eye's self-referencing is lower than that of Twikker's; but you conveniently ignore the Deadline example where self-referencing is all the article has to go on. Besides, either self-referencing is to be included, or it isn't. The Private Eye article is just one example where self-referencing in this manner is accepted. Does the degree matter? Ewen 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - congrats to the authors, one of the most interesting of wiki pages. I am amazed to see (given the number of refs in the article today) that it has a 'refs reqd sticker'. If the 1947 Twikker says Kornberg was its editor, I would believe it - I can't think of a better source for this sort of info than the mag itself. roundhouse 12:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the refs required was added by me and only for the rock climb section. The article states "A rock climb in the Derwent Valley in north Derbyshire is named 'Twikker', presumably after the magazine..".  Presumably is not evidential, and the rock climb article does not mention the magazine, hence "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable".  L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * delete, per nom (lacks notability) & poor referencing (see above). L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the entire article because of one questionable reference? Besides, I've checked about the climb and it was named by a group from Sheffield University. Until I contact the group and confirm the reason for the name I think it's fairly safe to presume that they named the climb after the magazine, isn't it? Why demand this incredible level of proof? Ewen 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't start this bullshit with me again Ewen. I said delete per nom  and poor referencing.  I stand by this.  Many other student mags don't have a wiki article.  Many national mags don't have a wiki article - and why should they?  L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be rude. I have explained why Twikker is an exceptional case. If other mags don't have articles then perhaps it's time they did, but I'm not in a position to fill every gap in wikipedia. I've tried with Twikker. People appreciate my efforts and some have been helping to extend the article. Ewen 19:32, 16 November 2006 (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.