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. The arguments in support of keeping the article were fairly weak, but there was little appetite for deletion, so this close carries the same weight as a "No consensus" close would have. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Magazine[edit]

Amsterdam Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD closed as "no consensus". Previous AfD nomination still is valid: "Article describes a short-lived magazine and its even shorter-lived offshoot. During their brief existence, the only attention received from independent sources (of doubtful reliability - some read like press releases) consists of brief mentions in a marketing magazine and on two local radio/TV stations. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG". In addition, it would seem that the sole raison d'être for this article is to get even with its publisher, given the persistency with which some SPA editors repeatedly include specifically that the bankruptcy entailed the non-payment of outstanding wages (nothing exceptional in case of a bankruptcy), sometimes by including unsubstantiated (unverified OR and SYNTH) information on a to-be-published novel (itself also non-notable) that purportedly is about the events around this magazine. No substantial sources have been added in the 4 months since the last AfD and the existing sources are to press releases, the magazines' websites, and some very minor publicitary coverage on local radio stations. Given that neither of these two magazines exist any more, it is highly unlikely that any additional sources will be forthcoming. In all: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i completely agree with the above analysis of the current sources. i have not however actively looked to see if other sourcing exists. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given the general name of the magazine, it is difficult to search. However, I don't see anything of value on the first few pages of a Google search (links above) and the sources that pop-up in the GNews source are already in the article. In addition, the mentioned SPA editors seem to have been directly involved with the magazine (from their behavior, I'd say they are former employees that didn't get their salaries when the company went bankrupt) and would have first-hand knowledge of any existing sources. As they, too, could not come up with anything substantial, I'm fairly confident that nothing substantial exists. And anyway, as said, it is highly unlikely that more sources will get published in future (and, of course, WP is not a crystal ball. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The magazine(s) did not last long but were important enough to recieve attention from a nationally broadcast radio station and other national news sources. I've looked at them and they're credible enough. Those who would like to see the article deleted seem a bit overly determined and were the same parties who pushed for it during the last discussion, according to the logs. I question their true motives. 86.177.11.243 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — 86.177.11.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment The only reason that "Those who would like to see the article deleted" are "the same parties who pushed for it during the last discussion" is that those parties are still convinced that this magazine is not notable. Please, you should assume good faith instead of "question their true motives". BTW, none of the radio and TV stations mentioned in the article are national, they are all local. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: These two magazines, while short-lived, made enough of an impact to warrant coverage from various national news sources in the Netherlands (sorry to be so contrarian, Guillaume, but, yes, several of them are). Red Pen and Guillaume are being altogether too harsh and are employing a level of scrutiny, that if utilized elsewhere on Wikipedia, would lead to 3/4s of its articles being deleted (spare me the "other crap exists" tag. This article isn't "crap"). There are nine sources here, far more than are needed to warrant Amsterdam Magazine/Schiphol Magazine's inclusion on the site. Furthermore, the article deserves to live on, if only to serve as an epithet for the magazines. Someone out there seems eager to erase all existence of them off the internet. Please also consider that the article was considered for deletion months ago. We've already covered this ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheineken (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Albertheineken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• if 3/4 of the content in wikipedia is poorly sourced garbage, then YEP - IT SHOULD GO ASAP. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The number of footnotes is of no import if the footnotes are to primary sources from the subject of the article, or mere passing mentions or routine coverage of standard corporate bankruptcy or reprints of press releases from the subject. The current sourcing fails to establish "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, we're talking subjectivity and semantics here. What you consider "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" is not what I consider "significant coverage in reliable third party sources. At the very least, at this point, we shouldn't be quibbling over their reliability. That's been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheineken (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Albertheineken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• 1) its not what I consider "significant" the community has clearly come to consensus that routine local coverage of things like standard bankruptcy are not "significant" nor are product release announcements and 2) reprints of press releases are not reliable sources, even if they appear in typically reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Community"? A community of what, two people? I'm sorry, two pedantic Wikipedia editors does not a community make, especially after the first deletion debate came to "no consensus." Albertheineken (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you dont like the policy that has been set by the community, then you can go try to change it. It is our job to apply the policy to the articles we see.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subjectivity! Semantics! Albertheineken (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ROUTINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment In addition to this, the two parties pushing hard for the article's deletion have displayed an unusual amount of eagerness in removing certain sentences from the article. Edits that are made to the text are quickly erased by them within minutes. While I would like to assume good faith it's rather impossible, especially since Guillaume has made assumptions (see his comments above) about those who have created the article, maintained it and would like to see it stay on Wikipedia. I could come to all sorts of conclusions about his motivations for being so dedicated to killing this article but I'd rather not stoop to his level. Albertheineken (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced�whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable�should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea; it is considered harmful, please do not do it and if you find some, please remove or rewrite the content." It is entirely appropriate and supported by policy and guideline to immediately remove inappropriate content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said elsewhere, your standards are far, far too high and if you think this article is poorly-sourced, harmful, etc., well, you've got a *lot* of work to do around here. Get crackin'. There are much bigger fish to fry than Amsterdam Magazine. You've got a lot of deletion debates ahead of you. Albertheineken (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• and, as you have been told elsewhere, the fact that there are other worse offenders in no way suggests that we give this article a pass. We clean up the crap, when we can, where we can. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think these sources are crap. I don't think this article is crap. Your standards have been set to 11 on a 10 point "reliable sources" scale. Albertheineken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Routine coverage of a standard bankruptcy and reprints of press releases are "crap" when it comes to establishing notability. requiring more than that is not an "11" its a "1". -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subjectivity! Semantics! Albertheineken (talk) 14:47, 14 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak keep Despite several primary and questionable sources, there are enough reliable sources for this article to meet the GNG.  The Steve  10:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The citations all come from reputable sources, nationally recognized, etc. There's probably no need for me to repeat the comments made by others. I admit the sources surrounding the editor's book are weak, at this point, and I understand why my contribution to the article had to be cut. That said, when the book is released this fall, there's likely to be some discussion in the Dutch press about what happened with these magazines. So that said, this Wiki-article should be kept until then when additional sources can be added. Also: while I'm at it, I might as well shine a light on "Red Pen" and "Guillaume2303"'s odd/passionate quest to kill this article. Their over-eagerness is really weird. Slaapzaal (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Slappzaal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I am sure that when the book comes out and hits the best seller lists and is the subject of many academic studies placing it in context in relation to this magazine, THEN we can recreate the article with the significant coverage of the subject that will follow. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And when that day comes, I'm sure you'll be there to nix any and all citations stating as much as quickly, and ruthlessly. as possible, Mr. Pen. Albertheineken (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • if it, like the previous insertions, blatantly violates WP:ADVERT and WP:BLP and WP:OR, then yes, ruthless and speedy removal will be applied. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll give you the first two but WP:OR? Naw... Slaapzaal can't be accused of that. Albertheineken (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WP:OR of the original insertion was the analysis/claim that the character of the book was based on a particular living person. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. When/if the author of the book states as much in an interview, we'll come back around to this, I'm sure. Until then, jury's out. Albertheineken (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The infusion of SPAs into this issue, attacking Guillaume, smells funny. It's not the first time that's happened, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: Guillaume was the first individual in this deletion debate to resort to SPAs, accusations and assumptions. He accused those defending this article of being directly involved with the magazine, not receiving salaries, being bitter, etc. Feel free to review his comments above. If the "in favor of keeping this article" editors here are going to face these accusations, Guillaume should face the same ones. Yes, smells funny, indeed. Albertheineken (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed his comments above; my opinion stands. (And there is no reason for Guillaume to "face the same [accusations]" as he has done nothing that would arouse suspicion of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and is not an SPA. Methinks thou doeth protest too much.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The record above speaks for itself. He was the first one to resort to ad hominem attacks. Take that for what you will. Furthermore, as you pointed out, this is not the first time he's been accused of having questionable personal reasons for seeing pages nixed off the site. Albertheineken (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • are you really mounting a defense of "other people have resorted to Personal Attacks against him, so I can too"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If by "this is not the first time he's been accused of having questionable personal reasons for seeing pages nixed off the site" you mean "this is not the first time he's been personally attacked and hounded by apparent meatpuppeting single-purpose accounts for attempting to delete articles he honestly believes should not be on Wikipedia", then yes, yes I did point it out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 17 August 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisted as there is no clear consensus outside of the !votes by SPAs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even though a weak keep. Enough independent reliable sources to establish minimum notability, at least within Europe. Even though this article is doomed to remain stub or start class, it is of historical value. Yes, the wee inclusionist critter on one shoulder won over the deletionist on the other this time (don't know which is the devil and which the angel). DocTree (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (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.