Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaffer (magazine)
- 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Gaffer (magazine)[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gaffer (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAFFER for some of the background on the creation of this article.
Zero indication this meets WP:NPERIODICAL, especially considering it just launched. Sourcing is not sufficient - first source cited is a short review from a magazine club that promotes new magazines (ie quite a narrow audience), and the second is a one-man blog about graphic design in football (again, narrow audience, and hardly a reliable indicator of notability). The other two articles are about Callum Hudson-Odoi and briefly mention him appearing in Gaffer. It's hardly indicative of notability.
On a search, I found nothing more to indicate that this magazine would meet WP:GNG or the SNG for magazines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have improved the article. Could you please check if it now meets the required guidelines? Regards, Serankail (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- None of the sources you added are sufficient to support a claim of notability. All of them are are trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. Kyle Harman-Turner's website is not reliable for a claim of notability, because he works for them. I'm sorry, but this is why I think new editors should not be starting out creating new articles right off the bat - you need to get familiar with our sourcing and notability guidelines first. Please start with the two I linked above - general notability guideline and notability for periodicals, and look over reliable sources as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the guideline links. I have already read these and I still believe it meets the general notability guideline. For general notability guideline, the sources (except the Kyle Harman-Turner's website) are "Significant coverage", "Reliable" and also "Independent of the subject". For notability for periodicals it reads more like a guideline for academic periodicals than sports or cultural magazine. The magazine has been quoted by other reliable media like The Guardian[1], The Mirror[2], The Independent[3], Vogue[4], The Athletic[5], Evening Standard[6], Manchester Evening News[7], The Metro[8], Yorkshire Evening Post[9], Liverpool Echo[10], Sky Sports[11], Hull Daily Mail[12], The Sun[13] and many more if you search on Google. Why would these media quote the magazine if it were not notable? Serankail (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you had read and understood the GNG, you would understand why simply being mentioned is not significant/in-depth coverage. Significant coverage that meets GNG would be an article that's about Gaffer as a magazine, not an article about some other person that mentions that Gaffer interviewed them. None of the sources you provide support a claim to notability under the GNG, and nothing you've shown indicates that Gaffer meets any of the bullet points of NPERIODICAL. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the guideline links. I have already read these and I still believe it meets the general notability guideline. For general notability guideline, the sources (except the Kyle Harman-Turner's website) are "Significant coverage", "Reliable" and also "Independent of the subject". For notability for periodicals it reads more like a guideline for academic periodicals than sports or cultural magazine. The magazine has been quoted by other reliable media like The Guardian[1], The Mirror[2], The Independent[3], Vogue[4], The Athletic[5], Evening Standard[6], Manchester Evening News[7], The Metro[8], Yorkshire Evening Post[9], Liverpool Echo[10], Sky Sports[11], Hull Daily Mail[12], The Sun[13] and many more if you search on Google. Why would these media quote the magazine if it were not notable? Serankail (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- None of the sources you added are sufficient to support a claim of notability. All of them are are trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. Kyle Harman-Turner's website is not reliable for a claim of notability, because he works for them. I'm sorry, but this is why I think new editors should not be starting out creating new articles right off the bat - you need to get familiar with our sourcing and notability guidelines first. Please start with the two I linked above - general notability guideline and notability for periodicals, and look over reliable sources as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. None of the references demonstrate that the magazine is notable in its own right. At best, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Zero material RS for notability/nothing remotely meeting WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2020 (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.