Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Entertainment Monthly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 userfy to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Valley Entertainment Monthly. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly

[edit]
Valley Entertainment Monthly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publication. The primary contributor has written that the paper was published for less than a year, had a circulation of about 1,000, and was free [1]; since these qualities have been noted as mitigating against notability, they have been removed from the article. Article is mostly anecdotal, trivial, and reads like a personal reminiscence, original research. It is largely unsourced, and those cites that are provided don't clearly establish any importance or prominence as a journalistic venture--the foremost reference is to an article in Flipside (fanzine), whose Wikipedia article itself has no objective references supporting importance or notibility. These appear to be publications of the alternative press, but the guidelines for encyclopedic inclusion are no different than they are for other entities. The primary contributor, a single purpose account, has done much work on this, none of which merits the continued removal of notability and reference tags. Disclosure: I placed many of those templates, and attempted to engage the article's creator, as an IP account. JNW (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Nineteen Nightmares has copied and pasted the article to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Sandbox so there will have to be a history merge to preserve GFDL integrity. Ty 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Edits transferred to main article and sandbox deleted. Ty 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ty. You have been extremely helpful the last two days and it is much appreciated. Gold star for you! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
All the editors who have participated are helping to make Wikipedia a high standard reference work. Ty 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the 'primary contributor' mentioned above and though it doesn't seem to matter to anyone hostile to the article, in its defense it must be said that it was only started a few days ago, IS STILL NOT COMPLETE, and nonetheless already has three external links, at least as much reference material and is an attempt to give a complete picture of the paper and its contributors. I have attempted to produce a document that will meet Wikipedia standards, but within days it is being considered for deletion. "Anecdotal" material can be deleted by anyone, however, I disagree that anything in the article is anecdotal and would urge anyone weighing in on this to read the article, consider the iconoclastic people involved and understand that though the paper had a small circulation and short print run, it influenced several other publications in the area that picked up where it left off. Prior to its introduction, the Central Valley had seen nothing like it. Since Wikipedia's policy is to gather all human knowledge in one place online, who is to say it isn't notable? It is also important to note that the publicaton in its heyday was prior to the widespread use of the internet and in those days, that's the way we got our news. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Please note also that The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a "free" paper and yet is an invaluable document to many people, including myself. The fact that a paper is free or has a small circulation does not automatically make it non-notable and I tried to hide nothing. I believe the circulation is still listed, just in a different place, as I was making an attempt to make the introductory sentence clean without all the extras. This is obvious hostility on the part of the nominator as he/she made no attempt to contact me about the issue. The Valley Entertainment Monthly was entirely supported by advertising, had a sales and reporting staff, editorial department, office and mailing address, as well as business licenses and registration with the State of California. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Here are Wikipedia's own two first standards for deletion, by the way, this whole thing is ridiculous:

1.Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.

2.Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.

Unfortunately, these two steps are being ignored. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment - I disagree that these steps have been ignored. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing. The article cannot be improved because there are few or no reliable sources that can be used for verification. Furthermore, none of the sources demonstrate notability in any way. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree with most of the AfD proposer’s arguments, including those referring to personal reminiscence, original research, etc., I was at two minds on this one. Opting for “keep” is the result of my own personal experience here at Wikipedia, a source that has given me access to far more information on topics I find interesting than I could have imagined just a few short years ago – including much trivia – together with trying to correct the belief of most of my colleagues in the real world that Wikipedia is a waste of time and grossly inaccurate and not to be trusted. All of ‘em intelligent people who probably don’t doubt a word that they read in their favourite newspaper or in other encyclopedias such as Encarta – until they come across something written about an issue they happen to know about... And I know of a good many members of academia who have much to contribute to Wikipedia and who have tried to participate here only to be bitten by more aggressive editors – very often editors who spend much time writing up on pop stars etc. who are undoubtedly notable. Do I digress?

    The whole issue of notability does raise serious question which better-qualified wikipedians than me/I have already thrashed out, so this ain’t the place to do it. So, while a local paper, based around a small community, with a circulation of 1,000 copies obviously means nothing in comparison to the circulation of a national newspaper, it may be notable and influential within that community. And the fact that an alternative newspaper doesn’t get itself rave write-ups in the national press (the source of much “reliable” references at Wikipedia) has less to do with notability than with monopolising tactics of the media groups. And while on the subject of alternative and underground, who gave a penny for Gary Larson and Matt Groenig way back when? Or at the other end of the quality scale (subjective), the fact that so-and-so drew up a list of the 1001 best albums of all time, now a major reference here at Wikipedia. But I digress...

    Just out of curiousity, I clicked on The San Francisco Bay Guardian mentioned above and at the [[Category:Alternative weekly newspapers|United States]] and the first one I chose at random, Chinook (newspaper), turns out to have had only a slightly longer lifespan than this AfD. I realise that the fact that one article exists doesn’t justify the existence of another, but precisely the existence of this particular AfD has given me access to some other interesting material which happens to link in neatly with...

    Obviously none of the above does much to argue objectively for “keep”, and I’m pretty sure the article will be scrapped, but I still think it’s great that Wikipedia can serve as a reference for local events and institutions – however shortlived they may have been, or however long ago they disappeared - that the Establishment doesn't want to keep. Provided they conform to basic guidelines at Wikipedia. Of which notability is the least objective.--Technopat (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technopat, I agree that your above thoughts don't easily add up to keep. As you say, it's not for us to pass judgment on the means and methods of reliable sources. I'll digress as well: there are many people and subjects I believe deserve notice, and which I'd like to write about here; a publication I write for has a circulation of several hundred thousand, but I haven't started an article about it out of respect for conflict of interest, and because I don't easily find objective sources that mention it--so. If notability is not objective, Wikipedia has done a decent job of setting guidelines for us to use in ascertaining a subject's encyclopedic 'readiness'. And the idea is that such judgments be as free as possible of subjective qualitative assessment. Foolproof? Of course not, but necessary and helpful. Otherwise blogs, primary sources, and each of our personal experiences render everything notable. Respectfully, JNW (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources referenced or linked in the article establish any measure of notability. Google and GNews turn up pretty much nothing. Thus I can find no sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the three "external links" included in this article, none of them actually mention the subject. None of the other references have yet been clearly connected to any fact that they are supposed to be intended to support. My objection to this article is not that the subject was short-lived and had a low circulation, but that the sourcing is inadequate and unlikely to get better. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the referencing in this article has changed since I made my initial recommendation, I don't really know how I can evaluate the sources because most of them are obscure print publications, and even the two that are web sites don't include URLs in the references yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Met, please review the references again. I think the problem may have been that I really didn't know how to list the documents I have in the proper format. I was just throwing things around in tundry sections of the article without realizing how the site expects it to be presented. I actually have four print sources now: an article in Flipside, two in The Hughson Chronicle and one "mention" in The Denair Dispatch, both Central Valley newspapers, where VEM was published.Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment Any good invoking WP:Hey?--Technopat (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am in favour of the inclusion of lesser known cultural activities, but they need to meet WP:N, namely there must be reliable sources that mention the subject/comment on it/define its activities/basically show that it has been taken note of by others. These can be online or in print. WP:HEY can be invoked, but if sources are not provided, it is meaningless. Ty 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per creator's ongoing work to source references. Ty 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little bit of editing tonight, adding references and a photo of the paper, but honestly, I spent a good day or two of my time trying to add an interesting ariticle to this site, which unfortunately didn't meet the oh-so-stringent-and-objective standards of "notibility." So I'm through with it. You win, JNW or whatever your name is.

Someone above said the following:
"And I know of a good many members of academia who have much to contribute to Wikipedia and who have tried to participate here only to be bitten by more aggressive editors..."

No kidding. Hey, I tell you what! Let's all go around and clean up all the newspapers from Wikipedia that aren't owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner!!! Yeah!!!

I'll say this one last time, this whole thing has been an exercise in the ridiculous. If anyone bothered to read the article and decided to turn on their brains instead of their banhammers, we'd probably have some pretty interesting stuff on Wiki. -Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

It has also occured to me that the idea that little information can be found online is an indication that its inclusion in Wikipedia would be a beneficial thing, as people could research an otherwise older publication that does not have a large online presence. Please also note the Heymann phenomenon may apply here as quite a few references, external sources and other source information have since been added to the article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
How many of these sources actually mention VEM? Could you please quote any text from sources that mentions VEM on the article talk page. The sources appear to be about tangential matters, e.g. "Stanley passed away on August 24, 2007.[4]" This is about Stanley's death, not VEM. Ty 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This publication's staff was made up of several individuals all with different backgrounds and professional experience. There is an" online article about his death because people who read the paper knew who he was and might be interested in this new data. Maybe someone who knew him didn't realize he passed away. Who knows? It seems like you have a problem with any information being in the article at all. What a joke. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
You might exercise some restraint in your responses. I have raised no objection to that information being in the article. I have simply said that it does not specifically mention VEM, so therefore it does not contribute to meeting the requirements of WP:N for supporting sources to validate the retention of the article. Ty 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are so jaded and biased by this whole process you can't see the forest for the trees. The truth is that article has been developed into something better than most of what I see on here, with the exception of the big articles, such as "Einstein" and such. There is tons of information about the paper, references, pictures, external links, blah, blah, blah. There is nothing non-notable about it except a bunch of panty wastes sitting around deciding what the world should be able to read about on Wikipedia. I see this whole thing as a method of censorship and since the paper wasn't owned by some Captain of Industry, by your estimation it isn't worthy of remembering, even for posterity. It is painfully obvious that if the article were on par with the Wiki article on The New York Times, you all would still vote to delete it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineeteen Nightmares[reply]
Some might interpret this statement as a personal attack (calling us panty wastes [sic]). It's also a bit uncivil. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

[edit]
Yeah, look harder! You might be able to find other things wrong/to complain about. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Any chance of answering the question and providing helpful information? Ty 00:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems not. OK, I've removed VEM from MVP. Ty 00:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There will doubtless be some viable references amongst the 23,900 google returns, unlike nil for VEM. Ty 00:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen Nightmares, your confrontational approach to dealing with other editors only causes additional conflict. You might be surprised how willing people would be to help if you altered your tone and familiarized yourself with WP policies. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appear to be a lot of references to back up the claims made in this article, but they are too vague for me to be able to judge whether they hold any weight or not. Just because there are no google hits doesn't mean there isn't a lot of coverage in print but I'd want better sources. If the person with access to these references wants to go to WP:CIT and do them in the templates, I'd consider voting Keep. Of course they might be flimsy sources in which case no. Article clean-up (which is needed) can come along later. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my post above and the lack of response to it: "How many of these sources actually mention VEM? Could you please quote any text from sources that mentions VEM on the article talk page. The sources appear to be about tangential matters, e.g. "Stanley passed away on August 24, 2007.[4]" This is about Stanley's death, not VEM." Ty 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is it that a publication however small would be considered non-notable when it contained exclusive interviews with the following people:
Stan Lee (Marvel Comics publisher, Spider-Man creator)
Quiet Riot (band)
Rick Wakeman (musician, Yes)
Mart Nodell (Green Lantern creator)
Beat Farmers (band)
Ronnie Montrose (musician, Gamma, Montrose)
Kevin DuBrow (musician)
There is an obvious agenda to sink this article. There are also many, many other articles on Wiki that actually deserve to be deleted. This was no blog or personal web page, but a working, professional newspaper, with staff, offices, bills, business licences, and so forth. Because you cannot find a mention of a paper that has been closed for the past 16 years does not make it non-notable. It was just produced before the internet was in wide use. What is so hard to understand about that? I have already produced the references and articles in print to show that it was recognized by others. There are also photos of the publication on the article ostensibly to show this was real and that the article is no hoax. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment No one is saying that it's a hoax, just that it doesn't meet notability requirements. Interviewing a few famous people or bands does not make a 'zine notable. Multiple instances of non-trivial third-party coverage do. None of the sources provided meet that criteria.OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) In wikipedia terms "recognized by others" means that newspapers, magazines, books or academic works (written/published by someone other than the subject) have written about the subject. Please list any of these works that do this, and provide a quotation from them that shows VEM is mentioned by them. If you can't do this, then it fails the wikipedia guideline WP:N, which is the generally accepted yardstick here for article inclusion. Ty 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So then by Wiki's standards The Hughson Chronicle article announcing the paper's first issue should satisfy the naysayers? Why am I thinking that when that is solved, another magical problem will appear? The good thing is the article will blow the pants off 90% of the stuff on the site due to its having been templated, cited and referenced ad nauseum. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
It's not enough for a source to simply mention the VEM, hence the "significant coverage" clause in WP:Notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a start. The article doesn't just mention VEM (although multiple mentions can add up): it is called "Valley Entertainment Monthly releases first issue", so it's about VEM. We have one source at last. One is usually not considered enough, so maybe there are some others lurking somewhere? The material in The Hughson Chronicle should be extracted and used in the article, and the Chronicle then used as a reference in the article, not just dumped at the end of it. Ty 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ty, how would I go about formatting a newspaper article into the Wiki article? I can hambone my way through it, but that method has not seemed to meet with much success, so maybe you can give me some pointers on adding it appropriately. Is there anything in particular I need to do to add it, or can I just add another header and present the article along with with quotes from it, etc.? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
I have replied with information on your talk page. Ty 01:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will continue to make improvements to the article as more documents are uncovered and/or located on the internet and in my storage (I've saved every newspaper, mag and book since I was a kid, so I know there is more out there somewhere, I just have to find it). I've also added a link to the business license from Stanislaus County near the bottom of the article, not that it means much, but further proof that it was a legitimate business and not some homespun fanzine. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
You continue to confuse "proof of existence" with "evidence of notability." I don't think anyone doubts that the newspaper existed, or that it was as described in your article, what's being questioned is whether it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability. If you haven't done so already, please carefully read WP:Notability to understand what that means -- you need to understand that to know what kind of citations you should be looking for: certainly not a business license. If you can't find the necessary citations, you can make a stab at explaining what, exactly (in your opinion) makes the newspaper important eneough to be worthy of an article here. Unfortunately, at this point you've pissed off so many people that you've made it much more difficult to put that kind of argument across, another reason why you should probably retire the article to your userspace (as I suggested on AN/I) to continue to work on it. Besides, at this point it's pretty inevitable that it's going to be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note the review of VEM in Flip Side Magazine as well as the Hughson Chronicle article. That's two FULL articles from verifiable sources, not merely "mentions." I think we've pretty much retired the point unless someone just wants to say two "non-trivial, independent" articles in other professional publications still isn't enough. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
  • We have no knowledge of what those articles say, and, as yet, they are not used to verify material in the article by referencing. Usually editors consider more than two sources are needed to meet WP:N, so the more you can provide (and use as inline cites), the better. Ty 01:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - The creator and principal contributor has expressed an interest in developing the article so that it will pass muster, so I agree with the suggestion that it be userfied to his space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to have been a worthwhile little publication, but in perusing the notability standards I come away with the view that this does not meet Wiki standards. The general notability guidelines specifically exempt articles on subjects that are a "flash in the pan," and I regret to say that this publication unfortunately met that description. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per ANI discussion. New editor is working hard to find documentation to establish notability of the topic, and should not have to do that under a stressful looming AFD deadline. Move article to userspace and give author at least a few months to work on it; consider MfD if no progress made by then. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - The article creator is obviously trying very hard to make sure that the article is up to scratch. I'm still sceptical about whether they'll be successful or not but it's a good exercise in learning how Wikipedia's standards work and I for one would be happy to check in on the article as they edit it to help them along. Unfortunately as it stands it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INCUBATE -- Incubation will give the editor time to find appropriate sources. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valley_Entertainment_Monthly&oldid=1254592618"