Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Entertainment Monthly (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   delete. Shi meru  20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Valley Entertainment Monthly
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable, defunct local alternative newspaper, circulation approx. 1,000. Sources listed are either a) not reliable/verifiable or b) do not mention the subject. Subject failes WP:NNEWSPAPER, the proposed guideline (no current guideline), also fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in WP:USERFY with so significant improvement. Appears to be a vanity piece. Non-encyclopedic. Minor4th (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom claims "no significant" improvement" after userfy. Most of the references and a lot of cleanup work when into it before I put it back on the Main Page. How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * The article was userfied to allow me to add the appropriate sources and references since I still had to dig to find the Flipside and other articles that I didn't have in front of me initially. My mistake was starting the article on the Main Page rather than work on it first on my own page. Another high crime, I know, but please forgive my ignorance. I'm aware of the policy now. In any case, and once again, Minor4th has ignored policy and assumed the worst here. In truth, most of the references on the article were put there after it was userfied. Again, please check your facts before you go making accusations and incorrect remarks based fully on assumption. Any ref that doesn't mention VEM is there for purposes of citing a source for an individual that is mentioned as having been associated with the paper. If the cite wasn't there, it would obviously turn into this after about two seconds:

Right? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares It should also be pointed out that this article was nommed for a second time due to a conflict with an AfD with this article, Donald G. Martin, which Minor4th took as a means to create a justification for this AfD. Good show, Minor4th, I applaud your military skill.
 * Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as I said in the previous discussion, I looked for sources in America's Newspapers through the library and found no mention of this publication. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Turlock is a small town and the newspaper only ran a year. It is highly doubtful that it ran any "breaking news" that weren't covered by the Stockton Record, Modesto Bee or Sacramento Bee. I know because I live in the area and this is the first I've heard of the paper. Discounting that observation, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability. I tried as a WP Cal member. moreno oso (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per above, as well as my rationale from the original AFD. History: When I first nominated the article for deletion, the author left some pleasant corespondence, ; I especially like "You and your kind will not win". Eventually I concurred with the proposal to userfy, pending the addition of reliable sources to support notability, and see now that the article was re-entered in main space with little or no apparent improvement in sources. Longterm and contentious sense of ownership suggesting conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I stand by my previous comments - nothing worth saving. Seems a short-lived local publication, unencyclopedic and nearly 20 years out of date, non-notable, and still no google hits, except wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not going to vote since I was the principal creator of the piece but I'd just like to say that 16 solid references including national publications does not make this subject non-notable. No internet back then, that's how we got our news, I found the old copies in the garage but didn't realize the crime involved in trying to write an article on a small newspaper that wasn't notable to editors that in many cases weren't even born at the time of publication. I'd advise anyone who isn't biased to actually read the article and explain how the content and people involved, including Stan Lee and many other famous contributors, is not notable.
 * Oh, yeah, I almost forgot this...

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Comment - having read Minor4th's comments on his talk page, I concur. Had he not nominated the article, I would have after the article was brought to my attention by an admin during the Don Martin debate.  I also find it curious that you have a problem with the refs there after looking at the refs on this article.  The article does not meet Wiki standards, pure and simple.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are my comments on the sources used in this article. Since many of them are not available online, I have referred to their availability in libraries around the word as searched for at WorldCat.
 * 1) Valley Entertainment Monthly itself - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
 * Listed because the data to be cited for reference purposes was contained in the Valley Entertainment Monthly copies which I used to get the facts straight.


 * 1) The Hughson Chronicle - 1 library holding listed in WorldCat (Stanislaus County Free Library, Modesto, California).
 * Article appeared in this newspaper announcing the start of the publication.


 * 1) Duckduckgo.com - Site appears to be based on mirroring Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.
 * VEM is a defunct newspaper and is listed on an independent source. This is a fact and there is an online resource to support it.


 * 1) Answers.com - Mirror of Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.
 * The paper is mentioned in the article, whether they sourced it from Wiki? Unknown. There is a lot more information there than something they pulled from Wiki, though, so at least only part of the page is based on Wiki, if at all.


 * 1) UFO Magazine - Does not mention VEM.
 * Backs up a statement about a contributing writer. Doesn't mention VEM but is a reference for the claim made about the individual. Is this not allowed? Sarah told me I need a cite for the Mr. Morbid paragraph, so I assumed I needed to reference each claim. I think I'm right on this, but will defer to more experienced editors.


 * 1) Wraith - No library holdings listed in WorldCat for the particular Wraith described here.
 * Comic book from 1994. What can I say? I've got one, says VEM on the inside front cover. Should I make copies of these articles and fax them to Wiki? Yes, some of this stuff is esoteric and may have little web presence, but they support the Wikipedia standards by supplying the required refs.


 * 1) Vortex Two - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
 * This was a local UFO publication that ran an article on VEM in that issue. I would say this one is not a big name publication, just a localized newsletter.


 * 1) American Art Directory - Does not mention VEM; in fact, it was published almost 80 years before VEM debuted.
 * This one is there to support the contention that the artist referred to in the piece is a "listed" artist as it says in the article. If I said she was a listed artist and didn't put that there, I'd get one of these real quick:


 * 1) Penguincomics.net - Incorrectly cited web site. The reference should be to Penguincomicsnet.blogspot.com. However, the blog post at issue does not mention VEM.
 * Again, reference for the claims made about an individual contributor.


 * 1) Bar-None.com - Does not mention VEM.\
 * Supports another claim in the article about Country Dick Montana of the Beat Farmers.


 * 1) The New Millennial Star (or The New Mellennial Star) - No library holdings listed in WorldCat under either spelling.
 * Another UFO publication, this one a lot larger than Vortex Two. This one is mailed around the world to South America, Europe and the United States. Not surprising the WorldCat wouldn't cover it. How many UFO publications does the WorldCat cover? Also, if it is not in WorldCat, it can't be a reference? I'm confused.


 * 1) Flipside (fanzine) - This one does appear to have 5 library holdings listed in WorldCat.
 * Huge publication, albeit somewhat underground, that has been available in every major city in the United States since the late 80's. For people who claim the paper was not notable, a major publication like that would not have covered it if it was some little nothing paper as most here would like to suggest.


 * 1) Magus News - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
 * Gaming publication. Sorry no WorldCat, but VEM mentioned.


 * 1) The Sorcerer's Scroll - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.
 * Same as above. Issue contains article about VEM.
 * All responses by Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

There are also five web sites in the "External links" section, but none of them mention VEM. I realize that not everything is on the Internet, and to research some things it is necessary to go to a library and maybe even do an interlibrary loan. The problem is that most of the sources listed here either don't mention VEM or would be very difficult to locate. Other than the Hughson Chronicle and Flipside, I don't know if I would even be able to find any of the more relevant sources here. I'm not going to submit my recommendation yet, though, as the article might change between now and when the AfD closes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any references that do not actually mention VEM are intended to back up statements about the people involved and to that degree, the references back up statements about individuals involved somehow with the paper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * I should also disclose my relationship to this subject. I was friends with Mr. Morbid and I kept a copy of each issue as it came out. When I was cleaning out my garage a few months back, I ran across all the old issues in a box. I thought Wikipedia would be inclusive of even a small newspaper, but I didn't realize that having an article on the site means having to win a popularity contest. As for the article, I'm not going to take it personally even though it clearly is personal. The timing makes it obvious it is punishment for some other crime. The paper, as I've said ad nauseum, was really exciting to a lot of us back then and we didn't have the internet. I know its hard to imagine life without the net, but back then we actually got our news through newspapers and this was the only one like it in the area at the time. Interviews with Stan Lee, Quiet Riot, Mart Nodell and many others, all nationally known celebrities, artists and writers. Yeah, real non-notable. I'd suggest some of you actually read it first, too, before voting because one of your editor friends told you to jump on the bandwagon. I'll also add that I haven't seen Mr. Morbid since 1994 or thereabouts, so I am certainly no proxy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Delete. Per above Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment For disclosure purposes, I made a few cuts to the article without realing I wasn't signed on. Sarah advised cutting the fluff, so it was basically a bunch of paragraphs cut out of the piece. They are all marked something along the lines of "improvements, per Sarah" and the like. Sorry about the oversight. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

This is an answer to Metro from my Talk page. I thought it would be appropriate as it very clearly sums up in a concise manner this whole affair:
 * "Some Questions Exactly how many cites does a subject need anyway? Isn't it something like two? The article has two solid ones. The Flipside article is being ignored like it is nothing. That is a nationally distributed monthly magazine as I've tirelessly pointed out, but you are focused on some small things, which I find ridiculously petty, but I respect your right to your opinion, obviously. The Hughson Chronicle announcement of the first issue is no joke either. I just think the material is not being reviewed properly. How common is it that a small publication like that would nonetheless have interviews and/or contributions from internationally famous rock musicians (Rick Wakeman, Country Dick Montana!, Ian Moore, Quiet Riot, Kevin Dubrow now deceased), the creators or Spider-Man (Stan Lee) and Green Lantern (Mart Nodell), a nationally syndicated psychic, a column by a leading UFO researcher at the time, as well as a particularly gory column specifically about B-grade slasher films? It looks like it will be deleted and I'm not going to get worked up over it, it isn't that important. But it turned out to be one hell of a learning experience and that's a really good thing. With that said however, I have to add that the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot. Just my opinion, don't take it personally."

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Delete per nom. Source-wise, they're either VEM itself, passing mentions or are for related facts immaterial to the actual newspaper. Sadly, the creator seems to now be on some kind of personal crusade against the world. ninety:one  21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess it is coming off that way, but I don't mean for it. Bottom line is I spent a couple weeks trying to get this article together and when there was disagreement on another AfD, this one was mysteriously nominated for deletion by one of the principal editors over at the AfD on Donald G. Martin. It had been left alone, with refs, for weeks with no comment or additional tags. Odd timing and would probably annoy anybody. I am on a war, though, with editors who throw around accusations, then ignore the responses. That's just plain wrong but seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia. Incidentally, there are two solid, nationally recognized refs (Flipside Magazine and The Hughson Chronicle), so I'm not sure what you mean by "passing references" only. That is an assumption and untrue. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Comment -- NN, your behavior when anyone disagrees with you makes it very difficult to work collaboratively with you and does not inspire others to give you helpful pointers.  Nevertheless, you mentioned something in one of you earlier comments that struck me  -- as far as notability goes, you mentioned that what is unique about this particular newspaper is that it attracted interviews of very important people in the comics industry despite its being small circulation and a free publication.   In other words, it's not the big name interviews themselves that are really notable, it's the fact that such a small alternative publication could pull it off.    Maybe make that the principle claim of notability and make it more prominent and clearly stated.   I don't know if that will stave off deletion because I havent gone back and reviewed your edits or ref improvements since I nommed this.   But that is one way I think you could improve this article that might help bring it into wiki compliance.  Good night. Minor4th (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though arguably borderline as to notability, I'm satisfied that this publication made a contribution to popular culture. Outside the realm of articles that cause real-world problems (BLP or related matters), this falls for me well within the category of keeping more rather than less content where the content will provides some useful information without harming anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - NN has written to Jimbo Wales concerning this and his editing (you can find on Jimbo's talk), and Jimbo has commented that the article "almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia" Claritas § 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably Keep: Jimbo also told us to ignore all rules so long as we are improving Wikipedia. I think content that is non-notable to whomever could be labeled with a category for excluding from projects where it matters, such as printing Wikipedia. I can't see that it does any harm otherwise. Lumenos (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Summarise and Merge to Turlock, California - I see no reason why a historical newspaper of local interest might not be covered there. Claritas § 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with Claritas. Minor4th  • talk 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a WP Cal member, oppose mention in Turlock. The paper is not historical as it did not produce any lasting works except for this AfD. moreno oso (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm no - The two should be linked but it is rather long for that article. wp:IAR would be more of an improvement I think. It becomes a nuisance only if the content is some place like that. Lumenos (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (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.