Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren (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 keep. Improvements were made to the article late in the AFD which seems to address the reasons for deletion, and in which the deletion side has not opposed. –MuZemike 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Siren (magazine)

Siren (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable defunct Canadian magazine. No references at all. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No sources since 2006. Lionel (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I added one source reporting on the magazine's demise.[1] This article does provide some evidence for the magazine's significance during its brief existence. I also note this 1999 report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that used this magazine as a source.[2].--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd note that this article was created (by me, full disclosure) in 2005, when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were much more "make it up as we go along" than they are now; the magazine itself had only just recently ceased publication and was still a relatively fresh and current topic. It's true that there aren't exactly a ton of strong sources that can be added today, but for what it's worth, that's because our notability rules have tightened up over time and not because the magazine was never notable enough to meet the inclusion standards as they stood at the time. Arxiloxos' referencing improvements do demonstrate that the magazine did have some relevance in its prime; whether they attest to enough notability to make the article keepable under current notability standards, however, is for other people to decide. I will note that the magazine is also archived by the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, which may or may not also be a sufficient criterion to confer notability under WP:NMEDIA's criteria #2 and #5 for newspapers, magazines and journals — but that said, if I were doing this now, five years further removed from when the magazine was active, I'd admittedly be much more likely to give it a brief subsection it in an omnibus article on Toronto's historical gay media than to give it its own article. No !vote. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bearcat, I was thinking about just that possibility while reviewing this article. There is information here that seems significant, and that I would prefer not to see lost. Is there an appropriate article about gay media, or gay life in Canada to which this content could be merged? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There isn't really a good merge target for this yet, but I'd be quite happy to hang onto it in my sandbox space in order to work on one. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems to be cited just adequately and is notable. Bearcat, if you want to sandbox and work it, that's great. --CompRhetoric (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I've added some more small things to it, including references. I would be more comfortable with it though if some other stuff can be found. Just one other news article would be fantastic. But I do believe that it meets notability, if just barely. Silverseren^C 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)