Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plague (magazine)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to New York University#Student organizations. There is certainly no consensus to keep. Opinion is split on whether to delete or merge. A straight merge would leave the main NYU article's Student Org section unduly overweighted on this org, so a selective merge seems in order. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plague (magazine)[edit]

The Plague (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)

No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article's dead links fixed, illustrating two NY Post Page Six articles in which the subject was the main topic of a notable publication. JesseRafe (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York University#Student organizations. Not enough content here, nor clear enough notability, to merit an independent article at this time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It merited an independent article for seven and a half years. It survived its notability exam then. Since, some of its links died and it was nom'd because of that. Those links have been replaced. As this was nom'd solely on failing GNG it now passes GNG ergo its nomination deserves to be absolved. Should not be merged as it passed GNG. Nominate it on another grounds if you see fit, but there are literally thousands and thousands of worse articles worth the attention, not this one. JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This nomination was not made because of dead links. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • JesseRafe, would you mind explaining exactly how GNG is met? Which source provides in-depth coverage? Is that a reliable source? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The New York Post, the nation's sixth-largest newspaper by circulation, running two articles about nothing other than 3 articles about the subject (NYP piece mentioned two independently) isn't reliable and in-depth? JesseRafe (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two "articles" that are barely one paragraph long doesn't do it for me. The argument that "It merited an independent article for seven and a half years" is wrong, with millions of articles around here, some are bound to go unnoticed for a long time. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article lacks sufficient available reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:GNG.- MrX 14:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to make sure you guys are thorough, make sure to delete every other article listed at College humor magazines when you're done here! Let's make wikipedia better by deleting useful information, guys! Yay! JesseRafe (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York University#Student organizations. Hardly enough content for a separate article & does not seem to be notable enough for a separate article, but as pointed out simply deleting content of some value does not make Wikipedia more useful.TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York University#Student organizations, where this magazine is mentioned. Some content may be worth incorporating, but from the brief amount of independent coverage presented I'm not convinced that a standalone article is warranted.  Gongshow   talk 17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, all these votes were cast before further sources and citations had been added. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with RandyKitty, all the new stuff adds is a list of various minor mentions and the like. This should be merged and redirected as I stated above. There's no shame in such an outcome. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added Alumni section which includes notable figures in comedy such as Judah Friedlander, Dan Milano, and Frank Sebastiano, as well as other notable contributors like David Alan Mack. GlennHauman (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC) 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — GlennHauman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - I usually favor a low bar to articles on publications, but this seems to be based on a few incidental mentions of this campus humor magazine, several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit. There is one 1994 interview in the footnotes with the "regular" NYU campus paper that might count towards GNG, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Campus newspapers generally pass go and collect $200 at AfD, alternative student publications generally end up paying rent on Boardwalk... I guess that's a reasonable compromise for inclusionists and deletionists to make... Carrite (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above vote should not be counted for being a clear out-right lie or lack of actual English comprehension. "several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit" is patently false. There is one single solitary disparaging reference in there and it is there solely to reference the claim of the rivalry between the WSN and The Plague, so why would the WSN not disparage it? That's what was referenced. JesseRafe (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assume good faith" does NOT mean "blindly grant good faith no matter how objectively false a statement is", does it? Carrite's claims are false on multiple counts as stated above, face-palm-worthy falseness. Absurd that someone can so blatantly not pay attention and outright lie on a project page and the person who points out their either purposeful deception or egregious failure to read gets reprimanded with a pillar. A more important tenet should be "actually read the article first, then actually read the sources, then actually read the sources in the context of the article, not THAT'd be a great tenet, wouldn't it? JesseRafe (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were doing alright until you said "face-palm-worthy", which is uncivil, and then said "outright lie", which is a personal attack. You continued with personal attacks and incivility by claiming "purposeful deception" may be present, at least without sources to prove it. JesseRafe, with all due respect, you need to calm down. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? This Carrite person claimed "several" of the sources disparaged the subject of the article. How is that not either a lie or a blatant mis-reading? It must be one or the other, because it is unequivocally false. There is no gray area, either Carrite has difficulty counting past "one" or has a very different conception of the word "several" than common English usage. It is NOT a personal attack to objectively state that someone is egregiously wrong, it is, in fact, good science. Many people, who do think they were doing "good" have been wrong, and in the grand scheme of things Carrite's lies/ineptitude are moot, but nonetheless as factually unsound as any other proven falsehood. Again, reiterate the absurdity that I'm called out on WP:Civil for a non ad-hominem attack when merely pointing out that one voter's opinion ought be discredited due to incomprehensibly poor reasoning. JesseRafe (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This (i.e. the difference between "one" and "several"), of course, is also a separate issue from the context of that singular "disparaging" source, which is there solely on the claim that the cited source has a rivalry with the subject of the article, hence it stands to reason that one rival should disparage the other, that's not contested. JesseRafe (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Darting back in to this day's AfD and I'm rather surprised at the vitriol. What objectively false statement have I made, I wonder... "I usually favor a low bar to articles on publications, but this seems to be based on a few incidental mentions of this campus humor magazine, several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit." — Oh, I see, this is taken as an attack on content rather than the factual characterization of what the sources show. I guess my reading comprehension must be low, when the New York Post says "SOPHOMORIC MAG TAKES WHACK," that actually is not an incidental mention of the subject emphasizing its lack of wit, it is actually an in depth history of the subject counting to GNG. Silly me! I did see another piece of very similar (non-)coverage on the internets, but I guess somebody is just going to have to Assume Good Faith that it's out there, since I'm not seeing it immediately and have other things to do. I've actually got no dog in this fight, if there are a couple sources which emerge in addition to the interview I mention, ping me and I will happily flip my AfD opinion. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// "This Carrite person" Carrite (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here's the other one I saw, "CAMPUS CRETINS." Yep, this is one of the pieces being counted towards GNG by some people. In its entirety: "NYU prexy John Sexton can’t be happy about the new issue of the school-funded student mag, The Plague, which portrays him as a diaper-wearing buffoon. A satire under his byline and titled “My Pooping Regimen” reads: “I have a problem. My small intestine is very big and large intestine is quite tiny.” It goes into nauseating detail. NYU rep John Beckman told us, “It’s amazing. You can be a student at a top university in the country and still be totally fixated on potty talk.” Not very "in depth." More like an indictment of the publication's lack of wit. I guess I can count past one, which will be news to some people. I called two items "several," I confess — but at least I'm not the person trying to claim that one piece of independent, in depth published coverage about the subject is "multiple," which is what WP:GNG calls for... Carrite (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, in all seriousness, delete every page listed within college humor magazines - What is this article lacking that The Oxymoron, Golden Words, Stanford Chaparral, The Cheese Grater, Fish Rap Live!, etc. have? Are they all going to be deleted? Or only this one? If so, why? Please excise universal and equitable judgment. If this subject, which is surely more notable per wiki-inline citations (even prior to the recent spate of edits to avoid deletion) than many of the other items with WP pages listed in college humor magazines, is not noteworthy, then delete everything other than the Harvard Lampoon and simply wholesale remove reliable, cited, and noteworthy information from the servers. It's not like it's in WP's or WM's mission statement to be a wealth of all the world's knowledge or anything, right? Why, instead of being a Bradbury-esque fireman, not help improve articles you think aren't "quite there", but choose to erase with broad strokes? Whom does that serve? If this subject matter doesn't interest you, then ignore it. Live your life. Hundreds of television shows have individual episode WP articles, do you judge each and every twenty-two minute broadcast television emission on its own merit? After all, notability isn't inherited, right? So it doesn't matter how influential the series is on the whole, but what makes episode 17 of season 4 of whatever TV show itself notable? Was it written about in several published scholarly books (The Plague has been!), has it been mentioned in an on-going manner in mainstream news outlets over the course of decades (The Plague has been!), have excerpts of it been included in anthologies preserved by private collections and university libraries (The Plague has been!)? These are all cited, as well. What is missing in the notability department, pray tell? JesseRafe (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the third time: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to your closing question, have you read [{WP:GNG]]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the third time, yes! 1) As I said from the beginning how does the two NYPost mentions alone not satisfy GNG? 2) You didn't answer my question, are you going to delete those other comparable articles as well? If not, then why this one? Which clearly is notable and passes GNG in multiple sourced ways. If it's not notable enough, why not spend all this effort to help make it better rather than delete it? JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have told you already why I don't think those two NYPost mentions work for me. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: there are over 4.5 million articles on WP. Of course, there will be articles that don't meet our guidelines, that's only to be expected. But with a limited number of editors, you cannot expect that an article not meeting GNG can only be deleted if all other articles not meeting GNG are deleted, too. WP is a work in progress, done by volunteers with a limited amount of time. You see a problem, you try to fix it (by either expanding or going to AfD), you don't go looking for a dozen other similar problems... WP:There is no deadline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When? How does a reputable and reliable source like the NY Post in two separate articles about nothing other than the subject fail GNG? You never explained it. Also, you are still evading the question, are you going to delete the other college humor magazine articles or not? If not, why are you spending so much time and energy trying to delete this one? Nobody ever said every article not meeting GNG should be deleted, except, maybe you, as you feel for some strange reason that this article fails GNG and should be deleted, my argument is that this doesn't fail GNG and should not be deleted - how you got to the point where I think this and "other(?)" GNG-failing articles should be deleted is beyond me. From what I can tell your only argument is that you don't care about this subject matter. How this subject matter you care so little for got on your radar I also don't know, but since that's the only logical conclusion why you are making this a pet-crusade of yours to delete this well-researched and well-cited article, but NOT deleting all the similar subject matter but worse-researched and worse-cited ones seems to indicate some hypocrisy. Go ahead and put your deletion notices on the other articles if you're not a hypocrite. If you don't you're exhibiting a clear bias. JesseRafe (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that above. You are exhibiting a rather severe case of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And, no, I don't intend to go around looking for articles to delete. This one was at AfD and I specialize in magazines (and academic journals), so I watch all AfDs concerning magazines. Why it then makes me a hypocrite if I don't go around searching for similar articles, given the foregoing, is beyond me. Perhaps in a few weeks, I'll stumble upon one of those articles, following a link or a thread or just by chance, and perhaps I'll take it to AfD then if I have time. In any case, for some strange reason, I don't react well to people calling me a hypocrite. Comment on content, not on the contributor, like I -and others here- do too. Personal attacks like that are not very well tolerated on WP. Calm down. In this case, people have another opinion than you. Too bad. Move on, happens all the time. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I got confused between Randy and Andy, either way, accusing me of merely claiming "I didn't hear that" is wrong, as nowhere in this thread is you or anyone detailing how and why it fails GNG. Just saying it is not explaining it. And I did link to the other articles already. As can clearly be seen they are all, en masse, worse than this one. It's a legitimate question - why not delete every single item on that list of college humor magazines? Literally, why are you not doing that? JesseRafe (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally because, as I already said, I have other things to do. If you or somebody else feel they don't meet GNG, I'll !vote if an AfD is started. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet you have all this time to railroad a legitimate and well-sourced article? And you seemed to have been unable to point out where exactly you enumerated your list of reasons why this failed GNG, surprising... JesseRafe (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me to explain why the current sources in the article do not get it past GNG:
  • Dan Fiorella's blog posts: Personal blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Furthermore, as Fiorella is one of the founders of The Plague, sources authored by him also fail the "independent" requirement for GNG-satisfying sources.
  • Lil Brannon et al. (1982), Writers Writing: While I don't have access to the book, the article currently only states that the authors called The Plague "hilarious". That's hardly significant coverage; for all I can tell it's nothing more than a passing mention.
  • This PageSix.com blog post from 2007 (which is published by the NY Post): A one-paragraph unsigned blog post on what is probably the most minor kerfuffle ever to face a satirical campus newspaper. Significant coverage? It's a bit more than Writers Writing, but it's really about a piece that ran in The Plague, rather than about The Plague itself. Notability is not inherited (not that I think this makes the piece that got published notable). For this to serve as evidence of notability would be the equivalent of allowing inbound citations to articles published in an academic journal to serve as evidence of that journal's notability. I would also note that the reliability of the New York Post's Page Six has been questioned in the past, given it's their celebrity gossip page.
  • This PageSix.com blog post from 2006: A one-paragraph unsigned blog post discussing a piece that ran in The Plague poking fun at George W. Bush. See above. It's just an inbound citation.
  • Dan Fiorella's stories being republished in Sherlock Holmes compendia. Basically, this is just Fiorella's stories being republished. Much like the Page Six mentions, these are about as good as an inbound citation.
  • This interview in The Washington Square News from 1994: WSN is NYU's student newspaper. Student newspapers have always been a bit shaky basis for establishing notability, especially of topics that are local to the school. Furthermore, interviews are often not considered sufficiently independent of the subject to be reliable sources. While there is some commentary by the interviewer before the interview transcript, there's only about one short paragraph actually describing the newspaper. The rest talks about the people being interviewed.
  • This squib on the NYU Local blog from 2009: The Plague produced a short video that was shown at a campus movie festival. You might just call this the equivalent of an inbound citation for The Plague, though really it's such unsubstantial coverage that even if it was all about The Plague magazine (rather than things it has made or published), it wouldn't do much. It's just over 60 words on a NYU student organization's blog.
  • This interview of David Mack by the Hero Complex blog in 2012: Near the very end of the interview, where Mack is talking about his work and educational background, he mentions in passing that he had been an editor for The Plague. That's it. That is not significant coverage.
  • The directory of humor magazines and humor organizations in America (and Canada): Arguing that this supports notability is like arguing that having your number in the phone book supports notability, or that your website comes up on Google supports notability. It doesn't.
  • This undated NYU Alumni Connect entry: It discusses an old NYU satire magazine that died in the 50s. It mentions The Plague in the final paragraph as being sort of a successor to the older satirical magazine. This might be independent, but I don't think I'd call it significant coverage. I'm also not sure whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source.

Everything that's left is either patently unreliable or obviously not independent. Of course, it's possible that there might be other sources, but that this is all that's been added to the article speaks volumes about what's likely to be out there. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I know it's not merely the sources being used in the article that determine notability: I'm merely explaining why the provided sources aren't sufficient as JesseRafe contends they are. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for, unlike all the other detractors who merely stomp their feet saying it fails GNG and claim to have explained why, actually taking the time to point out its foibles. Does the aggregate of all these close calls not count for anything? JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Mendaliv's list above: I'm okay counting the NYU campus newspaper's interview as 1 towards GNG. One more really good piece of in depth coverage or two somewhat lesser pieces of in depth coverage is sufficient to fulfill GNG, in my eyes. But I'm not seeing any of that. Of course, my reading comprehension is low and I'm a liar, so consider the source. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny in that you're trying to be sarcastic, but your reading comprehension is low. You now defend your claim as being that "two" sources were disparaging (not one, though neither equal "several") yet you can't recognize the difference between an article (written by a journalist, or even a "journalist" re: gossip rag) and a quotation within an article. An article can be disparaging and if the author has a point of view, that POV will be the article's. A quote can likewise, but merely including a quote, especially if as a zinger does not make that the sentiment of the article in which it was placed, but a neutral reporting of that party's opinion expressed via a direct quotation. Last I checked they taught this in middle school — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseRafe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 June 2014‎
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Plague_(magazine)&oldid=1071218763"