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. without ruling out the potential to have a seperate merge discussion, however. kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 12:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The Blizzard (magazine)

The Blizzard (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This magazine is not notable. It has two non-primary sources, both from the time of the launch, both saying virtually the same things. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 13:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment: WP:NTEMP-- 180.155.69.97 ( talk) 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment: It's important to note that it didn't even have significant coverage so WP:NTEMP is irrelevant. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, but with only one clear RS and one other source that I can't tell is a RS (Sabotage Times) doesn't meet criteria. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep OK, so notability isn't inherited and all that, but the list of people who have contributed to the magazine is pretty much a who's who of quality football journalism, any given issue will contain articles by multiple William Hill Sports Book of the Year nominees. Extracts from it have been printed in publications such as The Guardian. Here's some coverage from Forbes [1] and a piece in the Press Gazette [2]. Oldelpaso ( talk) 18:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Jonathan Wilson (writer), the editor and arguably the reason it has received what coverage it has. I'm not sure there is enough coverage to justify a separate article at this moment in time. Giant Snowman 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Enough significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources eg [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. This isn't dripping in notability, yet equally the criteria is only that it needs enough. Article could do with improving, rather than deleting. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Also noting Oldelpaso's comments. Content replicated in major reliable news sources is a strong hint of notability. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 21:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Only two of those sources have a Wikipedia page, and those pages have a total of two sources and should possibly be up for deletion as well. Hardly screaming notability. Also one of the articles you've linked is a direct copy of the Guardian's article! RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Since when did we judge the reliability of a source by the quality of its Wikipedia article? There may well be reasons to question some of those sources, but the state of, or lack of, an article here is not one of them. Oldelpaso ( talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment:The Wikipedia articles having two references between them suggests those sources aren't very notable, ergo not significant. All the articles run along the same theme of using the Wilson quote about why he started it, then go on about the name of the magazine, then go on about PDF files. At the very least, this should be put into a subsection of Wilson's own Wikipedia page. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep good grief, there's an awful lot of significant sources quoted above to be having a debate about this! Nfitz ( talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Awful lot of significant sources? Like what? The only significant sources is The Guardian, and that is basically an announcement of the launch, a recurring theme in the links given above to suggest notability. All quote Wilson about why he launched this, and all go on about where the name came from, and all go on about it being abvailable in PDF's. At the very least, this should be put into a subsection of Wilson's own Wikipedia page. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (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.