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. Insufficient references in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Article can be easily re-created if (when?) it becomes demonstrably notable. Dweller (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Gatehouse Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Online publication, first issue less than a week old. No reliable secondary sources; the best we have is a mention on a Polish web site, no more than a list entry without any background information. Fails any applicable notability guideline I can think of. Google hits less than thirty, not all of which refer to this publication. Huon (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With only one issue and no WP:RS, this is definitely not ready for a wikipedia article. Vickser (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Predictable yet reasoned Delete primarily due to lack of reliable, independent sources. As such it fails the Verifiability policy. As the article is entirely edited by the editor and publisher of the magazine I would say that it fails WP:NPOV too. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article features two independent sources and is written from a neutral point of view. Ottens (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only do I absolutely agree with what Ottens has said, it is also a good _free_ resource for enthousiasts of the genres of the magazine. I would also like to refer to the precedent of Steampunk Magazine, which DOES have it's wiki page.

Also, in response to OBM: I'm certain that a lot more people would cooperate to the article, were it not that we are not allowed to edit until the matter of it's possible deletion (which I certainly hope won't happen) is resolved. So that comment is really not all that valid. hildekitten

• — hildekitten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Huon (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kitten, in response to your response, I'm not entirely sure what you mean: there is and never has been any block or restriction on editing this article. Nevertheless, it certainly doesn't affect my main point regarding sources. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of comments. First of all, the deletion tag is no ban on editing. Quite the contrary, if the issues raised can be solved via editing (for example by adding reliable sources to show notability), please go ahead and do so. Secondly, the sources added by Ottens are vastly insufficient. The aircraft carrier article by J.D. Roger doesn't mention the Gatehouse Gazette. It might be a source on carriers (though it'd probably still be considered unreliable), a source on the Gazette it's not. The Delphinius Tucker link mentions the Gatehouse Gazette, but it has severe shortcomings as a reliable source: It looks like a personal website, which practically automatically makes it unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, the author is himself a writer in the Gatehouse Gazette (and his website prominently mentions Mr Ottens, the Gazette publisher), so it's not quite independent. Finally, Steampunk Magazine also has a problem with sources, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. I'll look for sources for that magazine, and if none can be found, I'll nominate it for deletion, too. Huon (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's "rules" on sources state very clearly that they are guidelines, and while I acknowledge that the given sources are by no means perfect, they are sources still while there are literally dozens of un-sourced articles not even being considered for deletion. I know that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to keep this, however I hope that the effort we as contributors of the Gazette undertake to make this article up to wikipedia's standards is considered and appreciated nonetheless. I wish to note then, that there are few reliable, third-party sources out there, outside of the mentionings of the Gazette on livejournals, blogs, and message boards, because its first issue was released a mere two weeks ago. With time, and the release of our second issue coming september, I trust there shall be wider coverage about the Gazette, producing further sources to verify the notability of this article. For now, I ask that you base your judgement about this article and indeed the Gazette on its merits, for its publication is, I think, significant to the development of steampunk as a subculture, as well the genre of dieselpunk. Ottens (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't you think there is a COI here, as you contribute to the magazine (and are used as a reference)?
• The Gazette may become important, but there is nothing to say it is already. Delete or Userfy with option to recreate if it gains coverage in the future. The quality of the subject has no bearing on wether it merits an articleYobmod (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (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.