Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steampunk 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk Magazine[edit]

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

Reverted recent undiscussed blanking, but I suppose it ought to go through AfD if someone feels that strongly about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2007 is very early for steampunk, which became rather more visible around 2009 and has continued since. As such an early publication, I think it has some significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Speedy keep#1: Author isn't requesting deletion, nor is anyone else... Merits of the existing redirect already discussed in edit history and talk page. Insufficient secondary sourcing to address the actual contents of the topic, and nom isn't offering new refs. Struck nominator's separate !vote. Come on. czar 18:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS. This is your only warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked it, but if you need the quote: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." czar 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Apart from the procedural matter, a Google Scholar search turns up several examples of the magazine being studied as an example of the subculture. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That search shows GS listings of the magazine itself, and a handful of citations... No depth to write an article about the magazine itself. The one sentence in that entire search about the magazine lists it among other expressions of steampunk fan culture, which is exactly as the magazine is covered in the main steampunk article (among other expressions of fan culture). czar 21:25, 25 July 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.