Um. Reads as promotional. The sources I read were not about the subject, an online magazine, but were about subjects covered by the magazine. I think there are unlikely to be reputable sources providing non-trivial third party coverage of the magazine. However, I think a lot of work has been done, and that that work gets the article past WP:CSD#G4 (a weak achievement), and so they may be entitled to have it move to mainspace from where it may be quickly list at WP:AfD. The authors should be referred to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for COI, I am not an employee or close friend of the people who run 12oz prophet and I am not a blogger for their website; just as an FYI. I am a member of the graffiti community who knows 12oz prophet magazine/website is a cornerstone of that underground scene, and there are thousands of members that agree. Since it has never been made exactly clear what the page needed beyond what can only be subjectively defined as 'notability' I have lost interest in whether wikipedia wishes to be comprehensive on this matter [in the sense that there are no less than 5 wikipedia pages on other matters that link back to the now-defunct 12oz wikipedia page]. 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]
Hi primerstar6.
You say "12oz prophet magazine/website is a cornerstone of that underground scene, and there are thousands of members that agree". This looks like the start of a decent claim of notability. I could believe this to be true, but we are not interested in truth. See WP:TRUTH. How can you verify that it is a cornerstone. Where is the verifiable direct evidence that thousands of members agree? Was a poll done, and published, independently of the magazine, in a reputable source?
That "there are thousands of subscribers" is a point towards inclusion. Can you verify the number of subscribers? What is the subscription revenue? What is the advertising revenue? What impact has this magazine made on what community. Keep in mind that every mention of "blog" is a point against inclusion. We are not interested in what happens in blogs, although we might be interested in what third parties might say happens in some specific blog.
You allude to incoming links to the deleted page. At https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=12oz+Prophet&namespace=0. One is a see-also. Another is a reference from the magazine, where the reference wikilinks. The third contains a passing mention of the magazine, and is not the focus of any sentence "Os Gemeos met Allen Benedikt (founder of 12oz Prophet Magazine and also part Brazilian), who together with Caleb Neelon (also known as Sonik) became the first to interview them after a trip to Brazil in 1997 (12oz Prophet Magazine Issue 6; 1998), which became Os Gemeos' introduction to audiences outside of South America". These incoming links do not, on their own, justify an article.
Yes, Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive. We would like to have comprehensive coverage of all magazines. But there has to be some threshold for inclusion. Generally, this is the WP:GNG. There needs to be reliable independent direct coverage of the magazine. As online magazines often seek to promote themselves, we can be particularly firm on this point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I must agree with smokeyJoe--what the refs support would be a more general article about the scene. I'm perfectly willing to believe & hope that the magazine is notable, but there do have to be some references to show it. I don't want to keep the article out, but you need to find enough reliable material to keep it in. Now if the VV or the NYT or New York ever writes an article about the magazine itself, that's tthe sort of thing that's needed. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there's not enough here to demonstrate notability. I have no problem keeping this around in userspace, but there's no way it belongs in mainspace like this. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion exactly as I said during the AFD: The article has been around for 4 long years and has neither established notability or expressed verifiability through reliable sourcing. The userspace draft is really no better, and the conclusion is inevitable: that this is simply a non-notable topic and no amount of waiting and/or rewriting is going to change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
