The article calls this publication a "magazine", the word "newspaper" is not even mentioned. Perhaps it started as a newspaper, but it is a magazine now. Having a circulation of less than 7000 also means that it is not unreasonable to doubt notability. If you want to categorize this as a "Newspaper published in Morocco", then the burden is upon you to show that this is correct. The same goes for establishing notability. Ity should not be necessary for a reader to go to Google to see whether this is notable. The article should stand by itself and have sources that are verifiable and reliable, as well as independent. I am restoring the correct categories (as the lead says, this is "a weekly magazine" and the "history" section says it was established in 1991. Please do not revert again without providing sources that support your claims. (PS: if we would have to take all of the >60,000 articles that have a notability tag to AFD, the whole of WP would crash...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- @Randykitty: You're kidding right? Of course it's necessary for the reader to do a google search beforehand, we don't just add tags willy-nilly.
- First you have to admit to yourself that you haven't the slightest clue abt the subject of this article, were it otherwise you wouldn't have added GNG tag (actually even if you don't a simple google search would have shown you otherwise). 2. It is you who claim that this isn't notable, so the burden of proof is on you not me. And if you're not confident enough in your claims to the point that you don't want to nominate this to AFD and see what the community thinks, then why are you insisting on that tag, other then to prove a WP:POINT. Re, the 6,000 copies circulation, please know that there is something called scale & scope, i.e. in (e.g.) Morocco that makes it in about the top-3 most sold weeklies. Naturally, something published in a small country, or alternatively about a specialised topic, might not sell in millions. And again, with a little help from AGF, you could have guessed that by looking at the source, OJD, which is the auditing authority for nwspaper sales.
- 3. It was founded as a newspaper the article states and as supported by sources. There is nothing special about this case here, see The Economist, founded as newspaper and adopted the magazine format somewhere along the way. In this case, and just like The Economist article, Publication catgeory is the most appropriate, obviously the newspaper one too, and the magazine category but not the Magazines established in 1991, since it wasn't one at the time.
- 4. let's all behave like grown-ups here and be reasonable, we're disagreeing about a silly detail, in a stub that is 2 sentences long. Adding, a GNG tag, removing categories right after the creation of an article (which subject, evidently, you have no idea about) by an experienced editor and then edit warring over it instead of taking the right step after your notability claim is challenged (i.e. nominating to AFD) comes off as rude and WP:DICK behaviour. Admit you made a bad judgement (it happens) and let's move on. See that we've posted a wall of text for a freaking two sentences-long stub, how unproductively silly is that? --Tachfin (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Ad 1 and 2/ You are creating this article, the burden to show notability is therefore up to you, not me. The tag does not say "this is not notable", which would imply deletion, but it says "may not be notable". The article does not establish notability, that is easy to see for anyone. How this shows that I "have no clue" I fail to see. Ad 2/ Morocco is not a small country, it has 33 million inhabitants. Casablanca is not a small city, metre Casablanca has 5 million inhabitants. This magazine sells less than 7,000 copies. 3/ The article does not say anything about being founded as a newspaper. The source just says that it changed from a tabloid to a magazine format (not mentioning the word newspaper even once), which is a simple change of format. The Economist calls itself a newspaper, this periodical calls itself a magazine, there's a difference here. 4/ Yes, by all means, let's behave as adults and not call someone names just because they disagree with us. Notability tags are for cases of doubt. If notability is evident, they should be removed. If notability clearly is absent, something should be deleted. If it is not clear, it should be tagged for improvement. So don't be a WP:DICK and only remove the notability tag after adding adequate sourcing showing notability. That way we save the community the time and effort of an (according to you) unnecessary AFD debate. --Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
How about we get someone to translate the sources used in the article on this weekly in the Fr.Wikipedia? Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- In principle a very good idea. However, I read French and I already looked at the French article a while ago. I just did so again. Most references are to Maroc Hebdo itself and not useful for establishing notability. There are four references that are not to the journal. Ref 2 gives the circulation figures. Assuming these are reliable, they're not very impressive: a print run of just over 15,000 and a circulation of just over 6,000 (with something like 130 copies sold abroad). Ref 4 is 2 lines about the public it addresses and when it was established on the web. Ref 6 goes to GBooks. If you then search within the book for "Maroc Hebdo", you find a directory entry. Ref 8 goes to another Moroccan magazine, l'Economiste, and this is the only more substantial coverage (about 2-3 paragraphs). Ironically, if one Googles "Maroc Hebdo", the magazine does seem to be notable because of widespread coverage of a cover article widely perceived as racist (most hits on the first few pages; mostly in French). Nothing of this is in the article yet. So I guess that the appropriate tag on the article would be something like "third party references needed", although notability is not evident from the current state of the stub. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
-
- The way I understand it, a source can be reliable without necessarily being notable (and the other way around, of course -probably much more frequent). (See also this discussion). --Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
