Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensions 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions Magazine

[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)

Fails to meet WP:N and WP:V Tatupiplu'^talk 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article is a WP:COPYVIO of this site, which predates this article. That site has no "about" page, no disclaimers, no privacy policy... There is no indication at that site that this text has been released under a compatible license, so it must be treated as a copyright violation. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I am the author of the text on that other site. So no, there is no copyvio. Throwawiki (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good enough, because how can we know this, and how will future editors know this? Since the account on that website claims to represent multiple people, it's not clear how this could be clearly attributed, which is necessary for Wikipedia. Without this attribution, you cannot just claim to have written something. Please see your talk page, which mentions this in more detail.

You will also need to cite real sources. If sources exist, you will need to cite them, or at least provide some way for other people to verify that they exist, not just suggest that they exist somewhere else. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete as copyvio. Although the text was written by Throwawiki, it has not been released under a compatible license and is thus a copyvio - see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Additionally, the magazine doesn't appear to be notable. Searching for "Dimensions Magazine" on Google, Google Books, Internet Archive, etc. mainly turns up unreliable blogs and forums or mentions of other magazines with the same name. This book has some decent coverage, but it is a book about fat fetishism from a small BDSM oriented publisher and is not necessarily indicative of significance outside of the fat fetish community. That's all that seems to exist, so I don't think this meets GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing speedy delete to delete as the copyvio issue is (mostly?) resolved, but the notability issues still remain, per my comment above and the analysis by Grayfell. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of a site is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of sourcing in the article. The issue regarding speedy deletion has been fixed, because the text is licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0 here. It does fulfill some points also through the book cited before in this thread, from here. It has been cited multiple times in academic research, 10.1007/s10508-012-9925-7 and in books such as ISBN-10 1597190179. They have gotten requests for media attentions, but those were mostly rejected due to a negative bias. See here. If they would not have rejected them, there would be more sources. I'd argue this is a good case for WP:IAR. Note that I'm still working on adding more sources, so speedy delete doesn't give any room for improvements. Throwawiki (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-SA 3.0 requires attribution. This still has not been handled well, or at all, here. Just copying content from one site without any indication where this original came from is still not enough. Who is this currently attributed to?

Further, all content needs to meet WP:V. We do not care that coverage was "rejected", because Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Therefore, a forum post from the magazine in 2005 is irrelevant. We are not interested in whether or not the magazine allows coverage, we are interested in coverage in reliable sources. Further, the use of independent sources for notability is not something we're going to ignore without a very good reason, and you have not yet provided such a reason.

ISBN 1597190179 is a work of fiction, published by a niche publisher, which Worldcat lists in only two libraries. It does very little to demonstrate notability, for several reasons.

"Feederism: An Exaggeration of a Normative Mate Selection Preference?" from Archives of Sexual Behavior needs to be evaluated in context, and merely being mentioned is not sufficient. Here is the only mention of Dimensions:

Individuals communicate through chat rooms and message boards on group websites such as FantasyFeeder.com and DimensionsMagazine.com. Individuals provide each other with weight gaining advice and encourage one another to meet their weight gaining goals. In addition to the group websites, there are also personal...[1]

This is very flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for creation, spam and no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: No, this is false, I am not being paid. Please retract that. Throwawiki (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaged in promoting this magazine across multiple platforms, misrepresented sources and wrote a blatant advertisement. Assuming you have a conflict of interest is, at the very least, reasonable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't look like a paid article to me though, looks to be written more from a fan point of view. However, there just sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability and most of the content is not verifiable. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Praxidicae - while the paid for creation bit can be disputed, there is still no coverage and there is a clear COI. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2020 (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.