Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartford Living

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dartford Living[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable free magazine with a small local circulation and no references for verifiability. Has interviewed some notable people but so have many other non-notable publications (e.g. student magazines) which we don't have articles on. Previously speedily deleted twice. DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are COI problems too. Please see User talk:DanielRigal#Dartford Living for confirmation that the author is editing on behalf of the publication. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abdelhk here, author of the Dartford Living page. I must say that it's getting confusing with so many participants and I am unsure how to proceed from here. Sure I would like to dispute the deletion of the Dartford Living entry and I have placed a conversation I've haad with the editor who nominated the page for deletion below...

Also, above it is stated that there are COI interests - is this Conflict of Interest? and then goes on to say [for confirmation that the author is editing on behalf of the publication]....if confirmation is needed from the editor or from an @dartfordliving.com address to verify that I am acting on behalf of Dartford Living then this can be done, the same way that the photos and copyright were secured...

Please advise with what I have to do.... abdelhk

-- We wanted a reference point for people searching for Dartford Living on the web.

I have responded to your comments below. your comments are in brackets []..

[Seemingly non-notable free magazine] - this is offensive. non-notable? Dartford Living has good links with local organisations and residents and has been involved in local politics since inception.

[with a small local circulation] - you call 6,000 printed copies small? have you considered our online presence at our website and on facebook? (700 members within 5 months). We have also set up on twitter and within one month have 50 followers. We also have people downloading each issue form our website from all over the globe, and downloads are in excess of 400 downloads...besides...is there a criteria that asks a minimum number of copies each month before it can be conidered for entry on to wikipedia?

[and no references for verifiability.] - we can provide references if necessary.

[Has interviewed some notable people but so have many other non-notable publications (e.g. student magazines) which we don't have articles on.] - maybe because these publications don;t want to be on wikipedia, or not thought about setting an entry on wikipedia?

[Previously speedily deleted twice.] - true, because the entry sounded like an advert and because we didn't understand the copyright issues with photos (since cleared up). we have revamped it to make it more factual instead. we are new to wiki and are just getting to grips with it

There must be some guidelines we can refer to in this dispute - another view fron another editor as your comments are not just offensive but do not stand up to any scrutiny....I hope that we can resolve this amicably without removal of the page. if it needs changing or editing please advise us and we will do so. u need references? what kind of references? anything else we need to add or omit?

regards

abdelhk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Not notable as in not fulfilling the notability criteria. Its not offensive. Please have your say on the AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please do not paste a comment I put on one page onto another one. It makes it look like I made it here, where it clearly makes no sense. You can quote me if you like but please make it clear that it is a quote. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Notability is not ascertained in the article. There are no third party reliable sources that mention this publication. The author has a very clear conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article about his own publication. The author seems to regard wikipedia as a hosting service, it is not about whether you want to be on wikipedia, but whether you are notable enough to be here, and if you are notable enough, a third party will write an article for you. As for this nomination being offensive, this is a borderline personal attack on the nominator. Martin451 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are deleting this entry. I love Dartford Living magazine. It has a big following in Dartford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.164.210 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than the above comment. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any reliable media coverage to prove this then that would be helpful. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources that discuss the magazine other than self-published ones. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 mentioned Dartford Living a number of times on air, and once for more than 3 minutes. I can provide audio files for proof if necessary. DJ Dev Griffin to be exact. That counts as media coverage doesn't it? --Abdelhk (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as notable coverage. See WP:GNG, to whit:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...

Note also that it says "Multiple sources are generally preferred", not "source", so just mentions on Devin Griffin's show seems un-notable for more than one reason. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (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.