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 redirect to Mark Velasquez#NSFW magazine. This compromise seems to accommodate most contributors. If the magazine becomes independently notable, the article can be recreated.  Sandstein  05:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW magazine[edit]

NSFW magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable magazine lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a speedy G11 has been placed on the article. Looks good to me. I second the speedy deletion call. The page is just an adverisement. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Combination of a blog and self published print magazine (through MagCloud, a vanity publisher). No indication that this meets notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This publication is in its infancy, having just published its second issue last month, and therefore does not have a large number of Ghits or Gnews. The primary author is photographer Mark Velasquez, notable for his work on Bravo TV's reality program Work of Art: The Next Great Artist and his strong online following for his writing and photographs. This publication currently focuses on his photography and writing but also includes writing by other contributors. I can understand the criticism that this appears to be a vanity publication but I believe that that is a function of the magazine being brand new. From some contact with Velasquez he says that he has engaged a number of contributors to produce text and images for upcoming issues, which demonstrates a commitment to grow beyond a vanity publication. Publication by MagCloud is certainly a criticism that could point toward vanity but I'd argue that it is a modern publishing platform, the 'zine of our day. JPG Magazine started the same way, using Blurb to publish without having to raise huge amounts of capital to produce a work that was valued by its audience. If anything I'd say that I didn't build up the article enough to meet guidelines. Would it make sense to merge this in Velasquez's entry rather than giving it a stand alone entry? I'd appreciate any perspective on these points.Thecornkid (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Doesn't need to be wiped from existence, but it makes much more sense in the article for Mark Velasquez than its own article. And while I can appreciate that it's a fledgling publication, it's a bad precedent to create articles on presumed or desired notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging is an excellent compromise here. When its suggested that notability of a subject is inherited by some other notable subject, the answer is almost always to merge the article in question into the notable article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There is already an entry about the magazine in the Mark Velasquez article. All that is needed is a redirect. ttonyb (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Velasquez is probably notable, but not so notable that every publication of his will automatically warrant a separate article even at the very beginning. Possibly it will, when there are good 3rd party sources, but not yet. The current contents is so throughly promotional, that I'd also support a delete first, and then redirect. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 8 March 2011 (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.