Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charisma (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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charisma (magazine)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Only references are a passing mention about the founder (Stephen Strang), and a link from the organization's own homepage. More promotional than encyclopedic. SuaveArt (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons given by SuaveArt Thparkth (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: not the creator of this page, but thinks that this site is worthy of an article if creator and community can expand reference source, notability, third party citations, and information about the magazine. This has been a popular magazine for as long as I can remember, and believe it would be helpful if article was complete. -travisharger

Feel free to do that then, but as is current, this article doesn't belong here. BTW, I didn't even know this magazine existed before I found it's article, so it's certainly not "popular".--SuaveArt (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: are you a Christian? are you a charismatic or pentecostal? not sure on the numbers now..but in 1975 had over 100,000 in circulation...and their other magazine (out of 7) "New Man" has about half a million. they have also been very influential in the charismatic world, and stephen strang is a very well known business man. Certainly you not knowing of a magazine doesn't make it unpopular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity within a niche group doesn't indicate mainstream notability or popularity. As is, the magazine has virtually no mainstram mentions. There is a website called Wikia which has is specifically dedicated to hosting wiki encyclopedias on specific subjects (such as charismatic Christianity). This might be more appropriate there.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News turns up a lot of hits. Most are behind paywalls, but the magazine seems significant, especially as the flagship for Strang Communications, and it seems to get cited quite a bit. - Bilby (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many Google News results, several Google Scholar results which seem to place some notability within the subject. Additionally, a quick search for sources shows that the magazine is referenced by some books. As such, it needs clean-up, not deletion. --Taelus (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. No significant coverage in mainstream sources; what sources we have are biased simply because of the subject matter so cannot be depended on for an independent evaluation of the magazine's significance. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cover the work of small as well as large religious groups; it is only necessary to be important/significant/notable within the subject. The circulation of this is sufficient to show notability for any magazine or newspaper. Rejection of religious sources on the supposed principal of their intrinsic unreliability strikes me as being most politely described as cultural bias DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 35 year old magazine with a circulation of 250,000, 3 regular columnists who are themselves notable, all that adds up to fine notability. -GRuban (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Charisma is a key institution in US Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, both now and historically. That it is not "mainstream" is precisely the point - it's a charismatic publication. I'm sure I wrote the initial article, and certainly didn't intend it to be promotional (since I am a critic of the movement it represents). If that is a problem, it just needs rewriting and better sources. But to delete it would be insane. David L Rattigan (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've never heard of it" is a poor reason for deletion. Check Google Books and Google Scholar to get an idea of its significance. David L Rattigan (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a third (1) (2) case of the nominator failing to do research into religious publications before casting them aside. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is a prominent Christian magazine, as stated above. What matters for this discussion is the number and quality and reliable independent sources. Since the article was nominated, several such sources have been added, and many more exist as the above links demonstrate. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (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.