Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DRUM!

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRUM!

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

UPE recreation of article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum! Magazine. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ drum sets for sale are about all that comes up, nothing for this magazine or for the awards. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!: I cannot stress keep enough from this awfully reasoned AfD. This is a WP:MUSIC/SOURCE-listed resource that is used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and it meets WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals criteria #3–#5. The closing statement for the last one literally says at the top "I'm quite certain this magazine is notable"; but since 2006 we based AfDs on the existence of sources and not the state of current sources. Sources about sources are tricky, and there are two other exactly named magazines alongside the more traditional meaning of drum magazine (i.e., for firearms), so it'll take me some time to hunt down sources from the 500,000 results that currently pop up from ProQuest. Pinging Andrewa who undoubtedly has more expertise in drum publications. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking up "drummagazine.com" (one of the few unique search modifiers for the magazine) in Google Books reveals a great many publications citing it and several drum books which mention it as a recommended resource [1]. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Nom alleges UPE but has not bothered to to check with (re)creator, all we know is that they are a SPA and that is not uncommon for a newbie, who may just be a reader of the magazine in question. Previous AfD closed there is no prejudice against creation of a sourced article on the magazine (emphasis as per closer). Newbie cannot be expected to know the requirement for sources, and has otherwise done well and should be encouraged. So this AfD is premature at best, let us first investigate ATD. Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this time based on the discussion above, how other items in Gbooks quote it, it would seem to be something of a leader in the drum-media business circle, if that makes sense. (It's the best and most respected of drum publications). Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, you stated your vote was "Delete" and now it is "Weak Keep". Could you strike the opinion that reflects your current opinion? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, done. I'll get this right one day, I swear. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.