Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recharge (magazine) (2nd nomination)

Recharge (magazine)

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

This article was recently deleted in an Afd that saw little participation. After a discussion on my talk page, I've decided to undelete it and reopen a second deletion discussion. I am Neutral for the purpose of this discussion, and I won't be relisting or closing the debate. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the author of the deleted page and I must admit that is difficult to find secondary sources for a publication, for the simple reasons that publications tend not to write about other publications (unless they have done something controversial). Therefore it is hard to prove 'notability' using purely online sources. As the note at the bottom of Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) states: "A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article." The publication in question has been used 80 times (at the last count) as a source on other Wikipedia articles, and a quick search of Google Books shows that is often used as a source by academic authors. In the industry that this trade publication writes about, Recharge is one of the biggest, most-respected and most talked-about players, but that is not something tangible that can be proven by clicking on a single URL. Having said that, I've just found this link, which describes Recharge as an 'internationally-renowned renewable energy publication'. Does this count? :) LAC75 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: would it help to provide links that show how major news outlets have sourced stories from Recharge? Here's one example from the BBC (click here - see the fifth and sixth paragraphs). I'm interested to know what people think. LAC75 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or what about major companies or organisations talking about articles in Recharge (rather than about Recharge per se)? Would that help show notability? LAC75 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of lines to the Recharge_(magazine) page that support its notability (in line with what I wrote above). LAC75 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that LAC75's edits to the articles are good faith, but I think the attempts to show notability of the article make the page look more like an advert. I'm open to the ideas of notability given above by LAC75 - but the article is not ok as encyclopedic content as it stands - currently the article looks somewhat like promotion/puffery. The new links are either the companies own press releases, and a award of questionable value from a industry award body (ie www.windmade.org). That material needs to go.

I accept that the magazine has been listed as a source by other reliable publications. I don't think we have enough significant coverage at present - Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria actually states - The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works - this is extended in scope in the footnote - , and I don't think the coverage is yet significant.Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prof. Haddock. Those new links were meant to show that "The periodical has made significant impact in its field", as stated in Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria. I thought the quotes from the Siemens executive would count as an independent third-party source. They may be contained in a press release, but they were not written by the author of that press release. Would they be acceptable if that press release had been published on Siemens' website? It might be for all I know. I also thought the fact that a major multinational like Siemens was effectively buying 9,000 subscriptions would show Recharge's notability (which is, after all, the reason you want to delete the article).

I think you have also misunderstood what Windmade is. It's not an industry award body, as you stated, it is a consumer label (like Fairtrade) that is backed by the United Nations (and others) to show consumers that a product is made using 100% renewable energy. I would have thought that would count as a reliable secondary source.

Can I also ask Prof.Haddock when he thinks coverage becomes significant? Does he have a number of citations in mind? 100, 200? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm just curious because 'significant' is so subjective.

One last point, I wrote the Recharge article because the Wikipedia article for Windpower Monthly had been sitting there for three years without any secondary references. Windpower Monthly is not well thought of in the renewables industry, whereas Recharge has kind of been setting the industry agenda in recent years (it hosts a lot of important forums, has a big presence at all the major conferences, etc). If you delete the Recharge article, you should surely delete the Windpower Monthly one as well... LAC75 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 4 million articles on WP. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I particularly liked the bits that said: "Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate" and "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this" LAC75 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]