Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anomalist

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. As usual, I'll provide a copy to anyone who wants to put this on a zine wiki or something like it. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anomalist[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NMEDIA. I see no evidence that this magazine is particularly notable. jps (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As original article creator, I can't see much evidence of third-party notability either. But perhaps others can come up with some before the AFD is over - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you're interested in saving/copying the content, there is a Wiki that specializes in "zines and independent media", Zine Wiki. Not sure if it would be the right place but they don't currently have an entry for The Anomalist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby release my edits to The Anomalist into the public domain. Have at it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search of "Patrick Huyghe" "The Anomalist" brings up quite a bit. For example this book review from Journal of Scientific Exploration would be a controversial source. It has a write-up in an Encyclopedia[1] but we can't use other encyclopedia's as a sign of notability (they include everything by design). There are many other tangential citations on Google Books within the framework of fringe ideas, but they are not cites in "academic or scholarly works" per Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). There's no mainstream or scholarly coverage or citations. It does exist in 10 libraries but that is not much.[2] If this wasn't fringe science I would be more inclined to Keep (due to it being known within a specialty), but due to the nature of WP:FRINGE and lack of mainstream citation or coverage I am leaning to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can very easily use other encyclopediasas evidence of notability. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,the contents of reputable encyclopedias are a very good guide as to what Wikipedia should include. Is The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters reliable? If it is, it is evidence of notability. If it is not, you needn't have brought it up. James500 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, things being in other encyclopedias is frequently considered a reason to create an article on them, and specialist encyclopedias are often used as references - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FRINGE#Independent sources frowns upon using sources that are not independent from the fringe movement in question as evidence of notability. In this case, Ronald Story is a pretty clearly affiliated with ufology. jps (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, of course, I mean in general. But this is getting off topic for this not very notable publication :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't think a ufologist writing about ufology in a ufology publication should be treated as a reliable source. Notability independent of the proponents is also required per WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the proponents, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (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.