Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvetpark

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. After four (!) relists the consensus is in favour of keeping. Michig (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velvetpark

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

A 10-year old Lesbian/Feminist magazine. I came across this while editing an article about a leading lesbian activist. Velvetpark's website links to the Wikipedia article, so it appears they're using it as an extension of their publicity. Grace Moon, the publisher, seems to be the author here. I've searched for secondary coverage about Velvetpark online but can't find anything of significance. Because they claim to be read on five continents I think its only fair to launch an AfD rather than Speedy Delete. Currently fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom statement, internet search reveals no credible notability of the subject in any major (or minor) sense. Sionk's analysis of failing WP:NCORP is correct, and should serve as the rationale for deletion. -T.I.M^(Contact) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think there are enough sources to pull together a good short article but I'm not sure how interesting it would be and who will do the work. There are cites to notable contributors, some articles, and even the court case(s) but I'm not sure that's enough. Keep per improvements and sourcing. Insomesia (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wrangling with the US Patent office over the use of dyke in their byline as well as their hosting of the writings of a closeted West Point cadet both were covered in reliable sources, making this magazine meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is a curious case: the argument for retention seems to be that being not-quite-notable in several different ways makes something notable.

(1) The "dyke" controversy receives the most passing of passing mentions on a blog, and a paragraph or two in an article in Comparative Hungarian Cultural Studies. The article's discussion of the magazine seems to be based on the magazine's own web site. Only the sacred gravity of An Academic Journal gives this superficial plausibility, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP presents a fairly nuanced view of how scholarly articles should be used, and I'm not quite sure that the article, in this specific context rather than in general, is reliable enough to establish notability.

(2) Contagious notability: the magazine had a famous employee, therefore the company is notable. Evidence? A few passing mentions. But WP:ORGSIG.

(3) Its "renowned" awards, and here the evidence seems to be something that's tantamount to a press release in SheWired. Alexrexpvt (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of sourcing, ample to show notability is established certainly for this subject matter of this article page. — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough on the page to make it noteworthy. Should be expanded. Sean Egan(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look notable or encyclopedic to me - seems to be no more than a small footnote in the coverage mentioned. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Big enough web footprint for me, I favor a low bar for journals and publications regardless of ideology or content. This is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Existence confirmed and verifiability is satisfactory; the fact is that publications do not often write about their competitors, which makes finding so-called reliable sources more difficult than it should be. Sticklers for policy-based rationales can file this under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (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.