Talk:Knave (British magazine)

Nothing in the article about importance

Since I have been asked to make comments on article talk pages instead of nominating them for deletion, I will do so.

Please see Wikipedia:Notability:

"A subject is notable if it has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources....Notability is used to determine whether a subject warrants an individual article in its own right on Wikipedia.

* * * *

"Notability is a consequence of the official policies that Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc., and that Wikipedia content is verifiable (from independent sources)."

and Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

There is absolutely nothing in this article that identifies the publication as being important (notable) enough to have an article included in an encyclopedia. Again, my feeling is that it meets Criterion 7 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:Articles:

"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead...."

Firstly, this article is exactly two sentences long and hasn't had an edit providing content since August 2005. I'd say that being a stub for more than year indicates that no one cares enough about this magazine to write an article about it. Two sentences is not an article; I would argue that it's even a stub.

Next, what of the following content is it that identifies this publication as important?

• The magazine is a "long-establshed".

So? Lots of magazines have been around a long time; that doesn't make them notable or important.

• The magazine is a British pornographic magazine.

Being British doesn't make it important.

Being a pornographic magazine certainly doesn't make it important; many would argue that this is reason enough that it shouldn't have an article here. I wouldn't, but it's highly likely thta I am very much in the minority with regard to my opinion.

• It's published by Galaxy Publications.

The article fails to state enough about who Galaxy Publications is to use this as a claim for importance, if it even qualifies as one. (Not every publication by a particular publisher is necessarily important or notable enough to have an article.)

• • I have also noted a concern about the article on Galaxy Publications on these same grounds.
  • Why is Galaxy important? The number of publications it publishes? Not a valid criterion.
• It is an upmarket publication.

Unremarkable, there are lots of them, doesn't mean they're notable.

• It is the sister magazine of Fiesta

Importance cannot be asserted based on association.

This article needs editing to show that the magazine is an encyclopedic subject. Just because a person thinks something is important doesn't make it so (I think my pet ferret is important, but he won't get an article here); that has to be demonstrated in the article so that anyone reading the article can understand why there is an article about it here.Nicer1 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• You might also want to look at WP:CORP. Vizjim 14:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, this article meets WP:CSD for Articles, as quoted above. It definitely fails WP:CORP as it now stands. It's useless to list it at AfD, however, because those that think it's important would vote it down but they won't do anything to improve the article. It's a no-win situation.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to acknowledge how pleased I am about being wrong about someone doing something to improve the article. (More comments below.)—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability addressed

I would hope the recent edits address notability concerns. Gaiman and Ellison are highly notable authors, and a magazine which publishes some of their early work is going to be of some note, added to that the fact Gaiman worked there and that Fuller also worked there, I think there's enough to satisfy concerns. It isn't speediable and I don't think it would go at afd now legitimately, either. Hiding Talk 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits definitely address notability concerns; you incorporated information published by non-trivial sources and provided citations for it, meeting the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that the article topic has "reputable, reliable, third-party sources". The article can be expanded, of course, but there's a much better idea of what the magazine is and some of its history now; it reads more like an article than a brief declarative statement. I made some edits to the material you added as well; hope they're viewed as improvements. Thanks for your contributions.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I wrote that line in the verifiability policy, and yes, it is a stub, but there's never been anything wrong with a stub. Hiding Talk 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you still think that line's an important part of Wikipedia:Verifiability you might want to weigh in there; the policy is being edited and that particular line has been changed. And changed back. And changed. And changed back. And ... (ok, you probably get it).

I agree that there's nothing wrong with stubs; I've run across a few that caught my eye and I stayed long enough to (hopefully) improve them, which I think is the whole purpose of having them to start with. I may sometimes have a different definition of what a "stub" is than others do; Wikipedia:Stub is anything but crystal-clear on what qualifies. I'm still pondering the question, but I might also wish (hey, while I'm looking at the moon, why not?) that there was a time limit on how long a stub article could survive without expansion (beyond the addition of a sentence and a link to an external website). (Don't worry—I'm not even bringing that one up for discussion anywhere, so forget I mentioned it.) <grin> Take care.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let it grow

The entry needs flesh adding (if you'll forgive the phrase) but it would be short-sighted to throw it out. Under the editorship of Ian Pemble in the early 1980s, the magazine was considered quite an important niche outlet for some notable writers (I can vouch for Gaiman, Newman and Langford) and Neil Gaiman's interview of Douglas Adams proved a springboard in the former's career. A couple of points, however. The impression that Neil was a staffer is incorrect. He was a prolific contributor, but freelance nonetheless. Also, I am puzzled by the notion that Harlan Ellison was published by Knave in 1959. Unless I am much mistaken, the magazine is still only on Volume 39, and so launched almost a decade after it is supposed to have published this short story! Either a different Knave, or this one's history is stranger than I am aware of. Grubstreet 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that this error has gone unaddressed for 12 years. There were two KNAVE magazines. The one that published the two Harlan Ellison stories in 1959 was a brief-lived American men's magazine published by Loki Publications in White Plains, N.Y. It lasted about 1 year. It is a surprisingly obscure title. Fafhrdrn1154 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceased publication?

This magazine collectors' web page seems imply that the magazine stopped publishing in 2015. The Internet Archive seems to suggest that the Knave website at http://www.knave.co.uk was running as late as August 2017, and the parent company's website http://www.galaxy.co.uk/ until 2020 (and at least one edition of Fiesta was published in 2020; see https://twitter.com/fiesta_magazine ) but after that, nothing. — The Anome (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)