Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atwood 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 delete‎. Despite being widely linked, the arguments favoring deletion are backed by notability guidelines. ✗plicit 00:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atwood Magazine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No viable third-party coverage. Article reads like a resume with primary sourcing including own website, and vague Webby Award win is not enough to establish notability. First page of search results included Spotify, SoundCloud, LinkedIn and so on. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews is simply hits to the magazine. They have a flickr group (remember those?), with 200 members. I don't think this is notable. There is nothing outside of their own social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief discussion on Muck Rack, not sure if they scam people or not. Feels PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a source linked from hundreds of Wikipedia pages. Sources about sources are rare and insanely freaking hard to find (all you get when looking is the publication itself, after all), but there is value in keeping the article of an often-used source so readers can get a basic background of the publication that is cited. Outside of Wikipedia, it is also cited in a couple dozen scholarly books, including those by Taylor & Francis and McFarland, so it is at least somewhat reputable and notable under WP:NPERIODICAL, even if that is an essay. I will continue to look for sources about the magazine, but I just figured I would jot down my thoughts on the matter first. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please share the sources you've found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of where it's cited? Sure, here's some: The Popular and the Sacred in Music, Popular Culture and Social Change (Taylor & Francis), Under the Influence of Classic Country (McFarland), various news articles including those by People, Insider, and Columbia Daily Tribune. I will always stand by that a periodical is notable when cited often, regardless of the actual coverage of the periodical itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but those are all trivial coverage or name drops of the magazine. People, Insider and the Daily Tribune in particular are not helpful as the articles are about completely different things and only have a line mention this magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as well for the reasons outlined by user Why? I Ask above. Would also add the reasoning in Wikipedia:Notability (media) as a reference point as well. The media does not often report on itself. In that context winning a significant national award (which a Webby is, if not quite a Pulitzer) serves as an independent and credible validation of this as a non-trivial source of media content. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a hard one which will be difficult to untangle manually. There are indeed many WP articles that link to this one, but they all read essentially: "Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine wrote that..." That such a statement was made in over one hundred pop music articles looks suspiciously like PROMO. Here's an example:

"while Rolling Stone's Jon Dolan praised its "moody sheen", writing this creates "an enjoyable balance of desire and distraction".[56] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine praised "Somebody Else" for "maintain[ing] an upbeat but hollow melody while being danceable all the while".

I haven't been able to determine if there is a single or a small set of editors who have added these as it is difficult to find a specific edit (is there a way to do that?). I also note that the Webby is NOT a significant award - you can nominate your web site for it and pay a fee, and an honorable mention appears to just mean that you had done that. I am far from convinced by these "strong keep" !votes and would like to hear what they are based on. I'll cycle back. Lamona (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt this is being added as a source to music articles simply to boost the magazine. Rather, I voted keep because many semi-niche, but also semi-popular-in-their-field periodicals (from research journals to magazines) deserve to have something where Wikipedians can gauge what the source actually is, especially if it's on such an impact level as this magazine. Periodicals are like professors on Wikipedia. No one writes about them. What is important is what they write. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base your doubts on? Are you familiar with the magazine? Do you know how we can determine its status in the niche? I think we need more to go on than gut feelings. Lamona (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that to be an “honoree” for a Webby you are chosen by an actual human judging process. The FAQ there seems to back this up but if I am mistaken on that I’d change my vote to weak keep. With that said I still stand by the multiple Wikipedia essays arguing that media outlets need to be judged in context, which is that they are notable by being cited more than being profiled. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "being cited" are you referring to appearing on Wikipedia pages? Because I didn't find citations outside of Wikipedia (at least, not ones that are substantial). If you are referring to the large number of WP articles that link to this one, that's an interesting question. The page on Reliable Sources has a section relating to user-generated content that reads: "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, ... and Wikipedia (self referencing)." It also says: "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." My feeling is that the fact that there are wikipedia articles that link to this article is not a "reliable source" argument for keeping this article.

BTW, the Webbys are not well thought of. See Slate. And the Webby site says: " Less than 20% of entries in the Webby Awards are deemed Official Honorees. With thousands of entries in the Webby Awards each year, being selected as an Official Honoree a notable achievement." An "honor" that goes to 20% of the entries is a pretty low bar, but definitely not something that would, on its own, establish notability.

Delete unless some sources are found that give evidence of notability. If deleted there is the big task of removing the link from a large number of articles. I hope there's a bot for that. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available source material on this subject would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some editor can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of this online magazine. Winning a pay-to-play award like a Webby is not evidence of notability. Being cited or mentioned on Wikipedia is not evidence of notability. The concept of a "reliable source" is not the same as a "notable source". Some notable sources are utterly unreliable, such as the Weekly World News and Der Stürmer, and I could go on and on. On the other hand, many reliable sources are not notable, like local historical society publications for example. Or minor online publications like this one. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage can be found from reliable sources. A BEFORE search shows mostly primary sources, and a lot of reliable sources are not notable. The article is also promotional. FlutterDash344 (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per cullen. My own search for sources hasn't returned enough either citations about the subject or citations of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 19 September 2023 (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.