Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtRocker (2nd nomination)

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 keep henrik•talk 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArtRocker

[edit]
ArtRocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite the previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtRocker) which resulted in a speedy keep, there is still nothing here which even makes claims of notability. It's virtually impossible to find anything with Google because the name is generic enough to come up with a lot of false hits. The previous AfD claimed an alexa ranking in the 600,000s, but now it's down to below 1,000,000. Corvus cornix 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artrocker is not distributed only through smiths news, it is just the main distributor. "22,000 customers" are shops and newsagents anyway, so it would be safe to assume that they stock more than one copy each. In any case, the BBC feature is a clear proof of notability. No more bongos 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Clarify - Smiths News is a wholesaler. No more bongos 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is mentioned on the BBC does not make it notable. The BBC could make an article on the chief editor's cat, but that does not make the cat notable. All of the other links you gave to articles have nothing to do with whether the article is notable or not. Also, simply because anyone familiar with UK music would say that deletion of this article is a bad idea does not mean that it should be kept. People that are knowledgable in a certain topic have a bias thinking that everything relevant to the topic should be kept. I has happens to me as well as others. For example, an article I wrote, Torrasque was deleted in this discussion. I was amazed that the community could delete such an important article to the game StarCraft. Afterwards, however, I have realized that I have a bias thinking that every article involving aspects of StarCraft should be kept. Though you may think that deleting ArtRocker would be totally insane, in importance to the encyclopedia, it may be the best thing to do. Captain panda 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-trivial feature solely focused on this magazine from the most important news organisation in the UK - not just a mention on the website. I would have no hesitation about deleting fanzine spam, but this is one of maybe 5h or 6 of the largest and most important contemporary music magazines (setting classical music etc aside) in the country. I mean, where is one supposed to find a reference about notable print media anyway? I agree this article is crap as written, but the subject is blatantly notable - if one can walk into your local (Smiths News) distributed newsagent and find a magazine on the shelves, it would tend to suggest that that magazine might be worthy of at least consideration of its notability, considering this is one of the three main distributors in the country. Sure, I have some small interest in this area, but I vote delete on maybe 90% of AFDs. How about being large enough to promote a stage at SXSW, which isn't even in its home country? Oh, by the way, the name isn't generic, all of the google hits I've seen relate to either the name, the club, or the organisation. No more bongos 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a notice found on the BBC article about ArtRocker: "Note: some of the content on collective is generated by members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC." Although I am not familiar with this BBC site, it seems to me that this article was not published by the BBC but instead published by a one Stuart Turnbull as determined from the bottom of the article. A link to a sort of userpage most certainly does not label him as a BBC employee. [2] From what I can tell, the BBC did not actually write about ArtRocker and is actually just some normal person publishing on the BBC site. Captain panda 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Point partly taken, but maybe this guy's content is sanctioned by the BBC and maybe he is just a bit more than a member of the public. He is a official contributing writer for this particular section of the BBC's website: "Stuart writes for The Times and The Guardian. He was X-ray Magazine's Associate editor and feature writer (The former magazine of major radio station XFM) until it closed down. [3] (Context note - XFM is the biggest rock/alternative/etc music station in the UK, no question) I would suggest that the disclaimer represents the comments box on the page, rather than the article. This fellow appears to have written 212 articles for this part of the BBC's website, by the way. I've seen him appear in quite a lot of other places as well - he is certainly not a member of the general public when it comes to writing in this field.. Seriously, though, this is one of the major magazines in its market in the UK, and it would be very odd not to have an article on it. It's not a fanzine, it's glossy, available in a huge number of places and - i'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - but one would have to delete 90% of the articles on any form of UK-based print media. No more bongos 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appears to be notable. Also, per the previous consensus (at the last AfD), as there have been few edits since, and content has been added to improve the article. - Rjd0060 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Has no reliable source and no external links other than it's MySpace links and it's offical website. It shows no evidence of even remotly being notable other than having an alledged crowd of X amount of readers. External coverage should be provided if this publication is notable. — Save_Us_229 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless notable 3rd party references can be added to the article. Andante1980 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very widely known and distributed magazine in the UK - they also put on gigs etc. Yes, third-party web sources are difficult to find - but who'd review a magazine that mainly does reviews? I think that BBC source mentioned above is valid (though it refers to the magazine's £1 beginnings, not its current £3.25 glossy version sold in Virgin and WH Smith) but just putting "Artrocker magazine" or "Artrocker tour" into Google will spill out enough peripheral mentions. Here's a mention [4] from Virgin Megastores that a certain band won a "nationwide completition by Artrocker", for example. Or this [5] BBC page that says a band has "been featured in lots of national press, from The Guardian to Artrocker and the NME". ELIMINATORJR 09:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point (as expounded upon drunkenly above) exactly. This is something that the national press views as part of the national press. No more bongos 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much as I find the magazine irritating, it's widely distributed throughout the UK, and seems sufficiently notable to me.--Michig 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears notable. If it's a rival to NME, covering similar sorts of music, then I wouldn't really consider that "art rock", more "pop rock", but that's not my call and has nothing to do with its notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an awful magazine but is widely distributed in UK through newsagents and, in particular, record shops. The lack of 3rd party sources is a problem, but as ELIMINATORJR notes, "who'd review a magazine that mainly does reviews?" Dancarney 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there ought to be at least a reference for the circulation, or for the assertion that it's the main rival to NME, before the subject is considered notable enough to keep the article. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, because it's mainly distributed to record stores rather than newsagents, it isn't included in the ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) figures. The only source I can find is a figure of 30,369 from Artrocker's own Press Pack ([6]), which, even though not a reliable source, I would say has to be accurate or they'd be liable for legal action from those that use the pack to advertise in the magazine. ELIMINATORJR 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment: I'd go ahead and put that into the article, saying something like "The magazine claims a circulation of 30,369.[7]". It's not entirely reliable, but the link is a reliable source for the magazine's claim, even if not for the truth of the claim. Argyriou (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ArtRocker_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140265096"