Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Initiate (Journal)

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 speedy delete. G12 Copyvio of en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_Initiate. No judgement with regards to notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Initiate (Journal)[edit]

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

Article de-PRODded by creator, PROD concern was "Non-notable magazine. No independent sources, no indication that this meets WP:GNG in any way". A few apparently independent sources added, but none of great import (and at least one probably not a reliable source). Crusio (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Intiate is used as source in at least two wikipedia entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Southgate and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila), contains new translations of several well known authors and is widely available. There is no reason to delete the article, though additional external sources should possibly be requested/added.--BenthamBrackets (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like the type of serious topic WP should have articles on. There is at least some secondary sourcing. I'm aware that some people "don't like it." I don't like it myself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1/ Whether a magazine is cited in WP articles or not, is immaterial to questions of notability. 2/ The "secondary sources" mentioned by Kitfoxxe consist of an obscure Norwegian magazine and another magazine for which the URL itself (http://www.users.on.net/~mmellors/TheInitiate2.html) already indicates that this is not a reliable source. 3/ The current article consists of mentioning that there have been two issues published and that a third is planned (violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL: note that this nominally "biannual" magazine has published one issue in 2008 and one in 2010), tables of contents and quotes from articles (violates WP:NOT) and from the publisher's website promoting the second issue (violates WP:NOTADVERTISING), and a description of a "controversy" consisting of an article in the first issue with apparently an angry response in the second issue, making for quite a circular argument for notability. As for "don't like it", I don't care what this magazine publishes, all I care about is that there is no indication that this meets WP:GNG. I have not addressed the problems signaled here, because I did not want to remove that text (most of the article) just before taking it to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make these well expressed comments. I agree that the case for delete is very good. I almost "voted" that way myself. I also wasn't saying that your nomination was based on "I don't like it." The ideas which this magazine seems to promote are very dangerous and, to me at least, distasteful. So "I don't like it." But still it could be important. At least this is a serious topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a potential copyright issue with this article. The text as it was originally posted appears to have been copy-pasted from Metapedia (I can't give the exact url as it's blacklisted). This discussion at ANI suggests that is a problem. If it's decided to keep the article it will need a re-write. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (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.