Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summum (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 delete. Though this is numerically just 2:1, the discussion has seen substantive source analysis demonstrating the inadequacy of the provided sources; as such there is consensus to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summum (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)

Notability not clearly established by reliable sources. Checked Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, while there are many results returned about "summum" (especially summum bonum, or more rarely Summum the religious group), I can't find any results about this magazine. The only cite contained in the article is to a French language press release issued by the magazine itself, so obviously not a sufficient source for establishing notability. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently a requested move open which is relevant to this article – Talk:Summum#Requested_move_1_September_2021 – which is how I came across it. @162 etc., Crouch, Swale, and Gentleman wiki: since you've all expressed some interest in this article. Mr248 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see articles from Huffpost, Radio-Canada, JdQ, JdM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Looking at your sources:
- JdM is a brief blog post addressing some controversy over whether one of their advertisements was sexist; it provides almost no details on the controversy (who is calling it sexist? it doesn't say), or information to measure how significant the controversy was, just the blog post author's disagreement with the sexism allegation
- JdQ is an article about how the winner of a reality TV show, Cintia de Sà, appeared on the magazine's cover; Cintia de Sà does not appear to be notable, there is no article about her on any Wikipedia (I individually checked English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, and the lack of a Wikidata item suggests there isn't one on any other either).
- Huffpost is a blog post about how the magazine put a transgender woman on its front cover for the first time ever
- Radio-Canada is about a political controversy over government money given to this magazine
I would say the first three are all low quality sources. Putting a transgender woman on a men's magazine cover is laudable from a diversity and inclusion perspective, but not really notable unless the magazine is especially famous and the act gets widespread media coverage or turns into a significant political or cultural controversy; I see no evidence any of that is the case here, so the Huffpost blog post doesn't really demonstrate notability. Some controversy over whether an advertisement is sexist, without any details to indicate how significant or widespread this controversy was, doesn't demonstrate notability either. Magazines put non-notable reality TV winners on their covers all the time. So that doesn't demonstrate notability either. The only source here which I would say is high quality and potentially serious evidence of notability is the Radio-Canada article. However, I don't think a single controversy over giving government money to a magazine is enough by itself to make the magazine notable, unless the controversy turned into a major political scandal resulting in resignations, changes of government, criminal charges, etc, and I see no evidence of that here. If this magazine was involved in lots of political controversies, and those political controversies were all covered in higher quality reliable sources like Radio-Canada, that may well be sufficient for notability. But a single controversy like this isn't. So even after considering your sources, I still think this is non-notable. Mr248 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't see what we might call JdM2, which your JdM1 linked to – JdM2 – that does have a few more details – it quotes Julie Miville-Dechêne calling the magazine's advertisement sexist–Miville-Dechêne is now a Canadian senator, although she wasn't yet at the time the article was written. That's a little bit better. We might say we have two small political controversies about this magazine (one over government funding and one over an allegedly sexist advertisement.) But the only sources I can find about the sexist advertisement are JdM and JdQ, who are obviously not independent of each other. So a minor social and political controversy without multiple independent quality sources still doesn't amount to much for notability. Mr248 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some minor so-called "controversy" years ago hardly meets the significant coverage criterion. Gentleman wiki (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2021 (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.