Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oatcake (Fanzine)

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 Keep, no consensus to delete and a merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oatcake (Fanzine)[edit]

Obscure fanzine whose notability appears to be limited to its team supporters. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a rudimentary search for sources shows that both the nominator's claims are easily refuted: the fanzine is not obscure, nor is its notability limited to team supporters. It is included in both Adams, Duncan (2004). The Essential Football Fan. Aesculus Press Limited. ISBN 1904328229., and Redhead, Steve (1997). Post-Fandom and the Millennial Blues. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415115280. It is referenced by The Belfast Telegraph, BBC News, The Sentinel and The Independent (A major, respectable broadsheet paper who even ran an article from The Oatcake here, and a third reference here). In terms of relative noteworthiness, it is included in both an overview in The Mirror of notable fanzines here as well as the The People′s list of "101 Football Fanzines" (this is especially telling given that there are thousands of football fanzines in the United Kingdom). An encyclopedic topic, discretely defined, of interest to our readers, whose content is verifiable by reliable, third party publications. Absolutely no reason to delete. Skomorokh 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia standards clearly state that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The previous defence fails because all of the verifiable sources cited here are trivial and/or incidental. None of the references cited above are specifically about The Oatcake. The coverage cited in The Belfast Telegraph, BBC News, The Sentinel and The Independent focus on other subjects, with the fanzine mentioned in passing. The People's coverage is irrelevant – being one out of 101 fanzines does not suggest notability by any stretch of the imagination. Ditto the coverage in The Mirror – it is just part of a round-up of fanzines, which Wikipedia defines would define as "incidental coverage." I am unfamiliar with the two books cited, but in view of the verifiable examples that were presented I cannot put blind faith in their value. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Notability, which is what I presume you are referring to, is a guideline, descriptive rather than proscriptive of what people think/thought ought to be a criteria for inclusion and not a policy, and my argument above does not rely on it. I strongly disagree that the coverage The Mirror and The People is "irrelevant"; it is highly relevant that out of all the thousands of fanzines, they explicitly selected The Oatcake as noteworthy. The references in the other highly reliable sources are not exclusively devoted to the topic, granted; they do however go towards establishing the credibility and standing of the publication as an important subtopic of the independently notable Stoke City F.C.. The significant question here is not whether the article jumps through some arbitrary hoops, but whether having an article on this topic is a net positive for the encyclopaedia. I commend you for specifically addressing relevant arguments here (I wish all nominators were as balanced and thorough), but it would have been much more helpful of you to have included this analysis in your nomination. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back Not to be contradictory, but you are mistaken when you state "it is highly relevant that out of all the thousands of fanzines, they explicitly selected The Oatcake as noteworthy." No, the two sources you cited chose The Oatcake and scores of additional fanzines for their grab-bag best-of lists. That coverage is not relevant -- there is a big difference between being on a Top 10 List and a Top 101 list. And, again, the other coverage is strictly incidental (the articles only mention the fanzine in passing). I do not share your opinion that this article is of value to the encyclopedia, though I must offer my appreciation for your spirited and intelligent presentation. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the point that Top 10 is important while top 101 is not; surely the important metric is out of how many. Top 10 things I say in my sleep are probably not individually noteworthy, top 1000 monarchs almost certainly are. UK professional league clubs tend to have at least two fanzines (as in this case) and non-league teams often tend to as well; like I said, thousands. In the instance of The Oatcake, Stoke City regularly attract more than 20,000 people to their home games, and many times this follow the team on digital broadcasts; the team has a large fanbase, and readers are very likely to be interested in this article. This is borne out by the traffic statistics, which show an average of 4,000 views of the stub article a year, despite the fact that "Very few or no other articles" have linked to it since November 2006. [And on a personal note, I think the encyclopaedia is benefited by the addition of curious British Things generally, War of the Monster Trucks and Abandon chip! being exemplary (uh oh...).] There is very little chance that this article will be used to post material damaging to the encyclopaedia such as defamatory content, self-promotion, spam and so on. Again, in summary: verifiable, neutral, encyclopaedic content, of interest to our readers, and of negligible potential damage. Skomorokh 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The evidence given by Skomorokh are secondary sources at best; if the BBC.co.uk article was about the Oatcake it would be acceptable, but saying "this is notable because of a 3-line quotation about membership cards" doesn't make it a primary source or reference. Ironho lds 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are secondary sources; this is an encyclopaedia, what do you expect? Would you rather the article was written on primary sources?! (pro-tip: it is) Who are you quoting? I'm sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me, could you please explain? Skomorokh 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i'm not too good at writing clearly. By secondary I meant the fact that rather than the BBC source being about the Oatcake it's about the football club and includes a quote from the editor of the oatcake; the quote was paraphrasing the argument that these sources put together lend notability when this source, for example, would only be good for a Stoke F.C article. Ironho lds 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Sorry, English is not my first language. Primary source and secondary source are technical terms; in this case the oatcake.co.uk is a primary source, the BBC article a secondary source, and my "evidence" as you term it a tertiary source. When paraphrasing an argument it's clearer to use 'argument' instead of "argument", and "if one was to argue that..." to avoid the impression that you are referring to an actual existing argument. For the record, I brought up the BBC as verifiying the noteworthiness and credibility of the zine, not it's technical notability. The notability guideline is just a guideline; in many instances it is useful but this is an uncontroversial topic (like villages, schools etc.) with no neutrality/spam/defamation issues, and enough verifiable material to write a decent stub. Regards,Skomorokh 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep being cited by major news organizations (even briefly) and making the top 100 list hint at notability strongly enough for me. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoke City F.C.. In my experience, most fanzines, although notable among football supporters (and not just of the club concerned) do not have sufficient independent sources to justify their own article. Unless more material can be found, then two or three sentences in the main club article should be sufficient. --Jameboy (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoke City F.C.. I feel this fanzine is (just) notable enough as a topic to be mentioned, but perhaps not in its seperate article. Giant Snowman 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stoke City F.C. is already a very large article, and lacks a "fan" section. I'm not sure a merger makes sense editorially, and I'm not sure where it would fit in if it was merged. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. Tovian (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (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.