Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle magazine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus to 'keep'. I am not seeing quite enough support to unilaterally rename to List of cycling magazines but I would recommend a post-AfD move discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle magazine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am not entirely certain how this subject doesn't fit into the WP:GNG, but the fact that we do not have articles on Dog magazine or House magazine or Road magazine or any number of possible other articles with a vague term followed by the word "magazine" means that this is not an article that we are going to host. A loose necktie (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not redirect to Category:Cycling magazines? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do that? I didn't know that an article namespace could be redirected to a category namespace. In that case, full steam ahead! A loose necktie (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have automobile magazine. Same type of content. Not debated for over 10 yrs.. Cycling is a valid type of mobility among the various mainstream means of transport. And you mean to say that this is on the level of "dog magazine"? Jocularity. -- Kku (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why only slobber factory magazines? what about magazines about kitties? ("Meeoow, meeow, rowwrr!" "Yes Mitskie, i've mentioned that cat magazines are important, ok?" "Mew, purrrrrr"). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear to everybody that kitty magazines are essential!!! --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Coolabahapple and Randykitty, there is Category:Animal and pet magazines which includes Cat Fancy. List of pet magazines has a redlink for Modern Cat (magazine) suggesting it might be notable. The "Dogs" section of the list has more, though. :( --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitskie has just told me that the reason their are more woofle (her word) magazines are that they are fawning creatures to their vain human owners who have in turn rewarded them with these kitty tray liners (again her words), unlike kitties who, on the whole, remain aloof to such trifles. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a notable topic here if only as a formal list (rather than a list which redirects to a category). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cycling magazines are a thing. Maybe it should be moved to "Cycling magazines" (plural) or "Bicycling magazines". It is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive article about them and their history. I just started a list-section in the article, because as Barkeep49 noted, what displayed as "List of cycling magazines" in the article just linked to the category and was not a proper list. More can be developed. Note that Category:Cycling magazines exists as a valid category, and by guideline wp:CLNT it is also appropriate to have a complementary list-article about the elements of the category. The list-article can include more facts in a comparative table, and photos of magazine covers, and statements supported by sources, which cannot be done in a category. --Doncram (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to List of cycling magazines, with the original name as a redirect. I could also live with the redirect to a category, but it's not my preferred approach. I don't buy the nominators argument of 'we don't have other similar pages so we shouldn't have this', but I'm also not convinced that there is enough coverage of cycling magazines as an independently notable concept to justify an article rather than a list. We should, however, have no difficulty finding sources that list cycling magazines in order to meet WP:NLIST. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and whether the article is mainly considered to be a list-article or not doesn't change anything about Keeping or not. List-article titles do not have to start with "List of", but moving could be considered as a wp:RM or other editor discussion at its Talk page. The AFD decision should be "Keep", possibly with a recommendation to consider moving (and "Move" is not an AFD outcome recognized in wp:AFDSTATS and should be avoided; it would essentially be a Keep decision with admonishment that "needs editing" in some way, as is often done.) --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable listing of noteworthy bicycle magazines with a prose introduction. It's how lists are supposed to look. Neutral on moving to the "list of" title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of cycling magazines; I agree with all of Hugsyrup's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.