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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filter (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)

No real assertion of notability; there have been no exclusive interviews, and even the NY Review of Mags source (which, despite its title, "is an annual magazine published by students at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism", and itself hasn't been published since 2010), claims it's a very niche magazine. Therefore, as far as unequivocal RS is concerned, all there is is a Billboard article saying the mag folded (no pun intended). There's no guideline for magazine notability, but it doesn't meet common-sense barometers like popularity (stated niche), circulation (claimed 85,000, where our own List of magazines by circulation top 100 in the US it at minimum ten times that), or longevity (only 12 years, between 48-60 issues, because the article is inconsistent). MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Those sources aren't really focused on the magazine. The festival and magazine are rightly considered products of the company (Filter Creative Group), but this article isn't about the company. The mentions are mostly trivial, as well: CraveOnline, where it's mentioned once, and Billboard, where it's one of about ten "brands" mentioned. Adweek is about FCG and doesn't mention the mag. Consequence of Sound is three paragraphs on the end of the mag, and is less in-depth than the Billboard source in the article on the same thing. The LA Times article doesn't even mention it in the article itself. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. The sources say that the festival is an part of the magazine ("Filter magazine's Culture Collide Festival" seems to be how they describe it). But even if it's separate, an article could probably be written about FCG. There are certainly independent sources about its various ventures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional review of sources Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERGENERATED doesn't say anything about college publications. College publications with an editorial staff are not user-generated or self-published sources. Student papers have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 11#Student Newspapers and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?, and it is clear that college publications are not user-generated sources. In many cases, a college newspaper like the Columbia Daily Spectator might be considered insufficient to establish notability because it is student-run. However, The New York Review of Magazines is different. It is overseen by veteran journalists including Victor Saul Navasky, who was the editor of The Nation between 1978 and 1995. This sets it apart from typical student publications. Furthermore, the magazine is not written by undergraduates. It is written by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism students. This again sets it apart from typical student publications. Based on these two points, I believe that the magazine is reliable and can be used to establish notability.

    CraveOnline noted "FILTER Magazine has made quite a reputation for itself in delivering premier artists and uncovering new talent each year with its Culture Collide festival." Since the Culture Collide festival was run by Filter at the time, the festival is part of Filter's history. Significant coverage about the festival therefore can be used to establish notability for Filter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) mentioned this point above.

    Likewise, significant coverage by MediaPost Communications about Filter Magazine TV is another source about Filter's product and history, so can be used to establish notability. Quote from the article: "The idea was the brainchild of Filter magazine, a discriminating new-music pub whose creators rarely hesitate to think outside the page, so to speak."

    The LAist source is an interview, so the interview portion cannot be used to establish notability. However, in my above comment I quoted two paragraphs from the non-interview portion written by the article's author about the magazine. Those two paragraphs are independent material and cover Filter "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline).

    The Billboard article is a very strong source because Billboard does not cover the shuttering of every music magazine. That Billboard found Filter's closure significant enough to write in detail about strongly establishes notability.

    In sum, there are multiple reliable sources about Filter. Billboard and The New York Review of Magazines cover Filter in significant detail. MediaPost Communications, the Los Angeles Times and CraveOnline review Filter's festival Culture Collide. MediaPost Communications discusses Filter Magazine TV in detail. Filter passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You keep saying sources are notable, and your reasoning is spurious. You keep saying coverage is notable, and it isn't. Why? Because you can't make a sweeping generalization about what Billboard does and does not cover, and therefore assert notability because of that. You have no idea, unless you have read every issue of Billboard ever, about the level of coverage they do or do not maintain. You cannot say that the person who oversees a publication makes the publication notable, or that the type of student who writes it makes it notable. It's still a local student publication no matter which way you slice it. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if you want to call this RS, the statement by the writer "if you can find it" is almost as solid a statement for non-notability as I could get. You also seem to think that it makes sense for a magazine to have an idea, when in fact, it's the two guys behind it, the festival, and the parent company, which are three different entities who did. You can't derive inherited notability from a statement that no one is going to take at face value. Filter Magazine TV in Mediapost is not Filter Magazine. Ten articles on the festival that say "created by Filter Magazine" does not make the magazine notable even if it were true; you cannot use coverage of the festival to inherit notability for the magazine, period, because they are not the same entity. Even if they were, that's like saying Vans is notable for the Warped Tour, which they aren't; they're notable for making shoes. You need to read the sources for depth of content, not just a mention of the magazine, and you need to filter out repetitive and unrelated content. When you do that, you get "local small-circulation music magazine published for a period of time, and closed. Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine." We don't know who was in the magazine, we don't know what they did in the magazine, we don't know if anyone cared about the magazine, and so on and so forth. We have a lot of namedropping, and namedropping from a related entity doesn't constitute notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not say the sources are notable. I say the sources are reliable and discuss Filter and its products such as Filter Magazine TV and the Culture Collide Festival so establish notability. I have provided sources showing a clear linkage between Filter and its products which conflict with your view that Filter Magazine TV and Culture Collide Festival are "Owners engaged in other ventures unrelated to publication of magazine." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 29 May 2016 (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.