Talk:Hardgainer (magazine)

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Significance of Powerlifting USA

I note that an editor has tagged the new article Powerlifting USA for importance. Given that I started the articles for Hardgainer and Milo, and those were both questioned (and passed the test), I thought that fans of these pages might want to weigh in on whether they consider Powerlifting USA important enough. Tjic 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Hardgainer

User:FRCP11 tagged this article for importance. I think the key point is the following:

Hardgainer built its reputation as a source of no-nonsense training advice. In contrast to most popular bodybuilding magazines, which typically promote training methods of the top competitors, McRobert chose to focus on training methods that were suitable for the typical trainee rather than the genetically gifted.

You may think that sounds like marketing hype, but it really is true. The content was significantly different from what you find in common newsstand magazines like Muscle & Fitness. Dsreyn 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V and WP:CITE. Who says this? -- FRCP11 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say that. It is quoted directly from the article (which I thought you may have read), an addition I made on 10/29/05. What policy requires me to provide a citation for text that I added to the article myself? Dsreyn 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:V. -- FRCP11 17:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original complaint (from the importance template) was "This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter." So, I quoted a section of the article where the importance was stated. I may have misinterpreted your "who says this" question, but I thought you were asking where that statement came from, which is why I responded that it came directly from the article. In any case, that is a short summary of Hardgainer's stated purpose, which you can read in more detail in the editorial in the initial issue of the magazine (Volume 1, number 1, July-August, 1989). Dsreyn 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to state the obvious, but the notability of a publication is not established by quoting the first issue of the publication. What is its circulation? What verifiable influence has it had? Has it changed the world in any way? -- FRCP11 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to state the obvious also, but the mission statement of a magazine is often laid out in the first issue (though it was repeated many times throughout the magazine's 15-year run). Perhaps you could refer me to the Wikipedia policie(s) that state that a subject is required to have "changed the world", as I was not previously aware that that was required to be included in Wikipedia.

The impression I'm getting is that you are attempting to impose an unreasonable standard of notability that does not exist in Wikipedia policy. There's a section of Wikipedia:Importance that has been quoted already on discussions for a couple of the your AfD's, but I'll repeat it here since it seems to apply:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).

It then continues:

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or

2. currently small or a stub, or

3. obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)

Since Hardgainer published for fifteen years, I think it's fairly obvious that there was some significant interest in the weight-training community. Magazines without an audience generally don't last too long. Dsreyn 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep stating things that are supposed to demonstrate this magazine's importance, and my reaction keeps returning to "Who cares?" There are many non-notable publications that have published for more than fifteen years and have a mission statement, and aren't in Wikipedia. (When has a mission statement ever made a magazine important?) This particular magazine went out of business even though it was self-published. Where is the verifiable evidence "that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject"? -- FRCP11 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

out

This magazine was significantly promoted by Bill Phillips in Muscle Media 2000 who thought highly of it. I have no sources as I threw out all my old Muscle Media magazines but I felt I should chime in anyway. Not that it will help without sources. Quadzilla99 11:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm pretty sure Bill Phillips original supplement guide came with a little 10-20 page booklet by Stuart McRobert. Quadzilla99 11:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]