Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawberry press

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 of the debate was delete. The magazines seem to be real, but nevertheless the consensus is to delete the articles on them. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strawberry press and Strawberry Ragtime

Previously marked for speedy deletion as "vanity", but I moved it here to AFD to get more opinions on whether or not these two online magazines are notable enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN --MacRusgail 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please keep these entries I think the online magazine is of sufficient notoriety that it should have an entry on wikipedia. - Matt Corcoran

• Don't delete this entry. I've picked up several issues of the magazine, which is distributed all over near St. Mark's downtown. I've enjoyed just about every issue, and am interested in learning more about the free publication, which is why I'm here. So why is this entry marked for deletion--I thought the whole idea was to have info on topics that I can't find anywhere else? - Max Farrow
• DeleteAbstain as apparently not WP:V. I can't verify if this magazine even exists and anon IPs vouching for it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy (no offense intented). If someone can establish verifibility, I will change my vote (just message my userpage if you do). If WP:V is established, I would recommend a merge of Strawberry press into Strawberry Ragtime as "Press" is apparently defunct (per article).--Isotope23 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me also quantify that the WP:V must be that it is more than just a self publishes zine...--Isotope23 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Strawberry Ragtime is WP:V, but I'm not sure how notable it is. I have not seen strong enough evidence to vote keep, but I've seen enough that it may possibly be notable. As it stands, I'm retracting my vote and abstaining. If kept though I still think both articles and the author wiki article should be merged into one.--Isotope23 16:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete - A merge of Strawberry Press into Strawberry Ragtime makes sense to me. However, the magazine exists, and I have already said I would be willing to send copies to Wikipedia to prove its existence. Online it can be viewed at[ http://strawberryragtime.com] I'm not sure how the process of verifying these things goes, but you can call St Mark's Bookshop as well (212) 260-7853, and ask them about it. They can verify its existence. The magazine had a print run of about 500 copies a month, which isn't much, but it is something. Also, the magazine published many different writers from all over the world. I'm sorry for the anonymous IP address. I even tried creating an account this morning, but I don't know how to have my account logged in when I type this. The other anonymous IP addresses are from writers/ readers of the press I asked for support. Please give us a chance. -Whit Frazier

-Now that I think I've figured how to log in, please do at least take a moment to review the website. Thx. Whitfrazier 18:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Pure vanity as evidenced by the three votes to keep above - all connected with this mag. Shame! Ifnord 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

'* Reply to strong delete The only person involved in the creating of the magazine from above is me. I sent out an email to old writers, and readers who had written in with comments asking for support. How else would people know this discussion was going on? Like I said, SR was and is a small operation. I repeat that there are not many venues for talented, marginalized writers, as many little literary zines as there are, because the focus is ultimately profit. Since I pay for absolutely everything out of my own pocket to run this operation, there is no profit here for me. There is a fan base. Give people time to write in. Did you visit the site? Whitfrazier 23:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• • That's all and well, but your magazine isn't notable yet. When it becomes notable, then it's worthy of inclusion. For now, delete. Additionally, your meatpuppet votes aren't going to do you much good and in fact, their voting makes your case even tougher as most Wikipedia AFD voters have little tolerance for them. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Well, the only "meat puppet" is me. As far as I know, the people above did not create accounts to log in for me. The only logged in person supporting me was me. I did send out a mass email to people familiar with the magazine, and well, two responded so far. It is a Friday. Also, I specifically asked if any readers were members of the Wikipedia community to log in for the site. I suggest giving it time. - Whitfrazier 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I can vouch for the magazine´s international (if relatively minor) acclaim. It is well regarded here in Europe, as well as, unless things have changed since I left, in the United States. -Matthew Michel, Berlin, Germany, 24 October 2005

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.