Talk:Knave (British magazine)

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing in the article about importance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let it grow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ceased publication?