Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Tribune

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Tribune[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No references in article, a search finds no RS references outside of article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator comments: I have added an external reference / external link along with an infobox. Additional references will be added during the current editing process in the next 3-4 days. Is there any additional item you have in mind or are changes satisfactory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eehsani (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eehsani - per WP:WEBCRIT, for a website to have an entry on Wikipedia it needs to have:

been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, or,
won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

The sources you currently list (fiction books that include one-sentence quotes from Mystery Tribune on their front-matter reviews pages) are not sources about which Mystery Tribune is the subject, I'm afraid. However, others may have a different opinion, to which I'll defer. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Speedy Deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 08:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point in time there is nothing out there that would show notability for this online magazine. Since it's possible that they might read this, I'd like to ask that they not take this badly, as most media outlets - especially website based outlets - do not pass this criteria. The reason for this is that you need coverage that is independent of the magazine and anyone who is affiliated with them, which is hard to come by since most of the places that Wikipedia would see as reliable (newspapers, major web outlets like Publisher's Weekly, and academic sources) are unlikely to cover someone they might see as "competition". Even if that's not a factor, there are always more companies/websites than they can cover so the reliable sources tend to be very selective. It can take decades before something can get enough coverage to justify inclusion.

Now as an aside, something I really want to recommend is that you clarify your association with your partnering companies. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, more just something I'm saying as a reader. Seeing that someone is partnered with major publishing houses tends to make me very leery, as us readers are used to people who are/were just positive review mills for publishing companies. (cough*Harriet Klausner*cough) You need to put down some sort of disclosure somewhere about how you get your review copies and that your reviews are honest. Be careful though, because even if you have this, if you only or predominantly put out positive reviews then you will still be seen as a positive review mill. This isn't meant as an insult, just that as a reader who talks with other readers we have grown very skeptical of stuff like this and book blurbs in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (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.