Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (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. — TKD::Talk 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Inquiry (magazine)

Fails WP:NB. No references, no assertion of notability, obvious link spam. Hornet35 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accusation of linkspam is patently false and may fail WP:FAITH. It is usual for an article to link to the main website run by the article's subject, after all. Magazine is published by a well-known organisation, has well-known contributors and made the news after Borders books refused to carry an issue due to controversy over cartoons of Muhammad. Also note that Hornet365 seems to be nominating quite a few atheism-related articles for deletion, such as Why I am not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running (up to vol 27), published by notable organisation, the Council for Secular Humanism, with contributions by world-famous writers. Note that WP:NB specifically says that it does not provide guidance for magazines. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The only third-party source I can find in Google's top 20 on "Free Inquiry Magazine" is the AP Press release that was just referenced about an hour ago. Since notability is not temporary, I believe this would merit deletion. If other sources can be found, I may change my opinion then, but I'm not seeing them right now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources below and added to the article. Two minutes with Google works wonders. Nick mallory 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Council for Secular Humanism. Skarioffszky 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Plenty of room in Council of Secular Humanism article, and no need for an independent page. MarkBul 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long running and influential magazine. The attempt by Borders to ban it, which was covered widely, would make it notable too. Here the story is covered by CBS News [1] and the Washington Post [2] and the New York Times [3]. It's discussed by Slate.com here [4] and, by Christopher Hitchens, here [5]. It made international news as well, here the story is covered by The Times of India [6]. All these stories relate directly to the magazine itself, not the Council for Secular Humanism. Nick mallory 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is sufficient independent coverage of this long-running magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Dhartung has written, if proof of such coverage can be provided. Regarding the failure of WP:NB, no one cares! This is a magazine. :-) RFerreira 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely not link spam, and it seems notable enough. Agree with the above comment regarding WP:FAITH as well.PelleSmith 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable even without the Borders controversy. Undoubtedly notable with it. DGG (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable publication, with highly notable contributors. ornis (t) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the publisher is notable, the contributors are notable and it has stirred up some controversy which makes it notable in its own right separate from the publisher or contributors. It is illogical to merge it to anything else and certainly illogical to delete. Ttiotsw 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published by a notable organisation, plenty of notable contributors, and multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly not "linkspam". Hut 8.5 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish the nominators would actually spend a couple of seconds doing research before submitting the articles. Reinis^talk 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any relevant guidelines, but long-running, widely distributed periodicals seem to have an inherent notability. Espresso Addict 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This magazine keeps being referenced to in current debate, e.g., by Christopher Hitchens at the August 2007 Google Talks (Time Index 22:00), and should be available for looking up on WP. gyokusai 03:04, 31 August 2007 (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.