Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewpoint (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. Substantial reliable sources independent of the subject must be provided, and have not been in this case. bd2412 T 18:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint (magazine)

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

@Burphole and Metaloaf: Speedy delete queried for reasons stated in Talk:Viewpoint (magazine). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At present this is a speedy keep, as no rationale for deletion has been offered by the nominator. This was tagged as A7 four minutes after it was created, but subsequent edits added explanation of why the subject is important, so A7 no longer applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every reference in the entry is sourced to the magazine itself except one (the last) that doesn't appear to be about the publication. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this magazine is well-read, indeed, I've come across their articles before and learned of this AfD via socialist twitter, who generally has good respect for the magazine (I don't consider this a WP:COI but feel free to disagree). It seems that User:Burphole and User:Chanteuse267 gave good reasons for keeping it around (that it's been cited in other publications, though perhaps not as the object of discussion), and I think that that information can be meaningfully incorporated into the article to satisfy WP:NOTE. If someone incorporates these references to demonstrate notability, then I would say we should keep the article. Even if they don't, I would say that the contention that such material exists should be enough to keep it around.
That being said, I agree with User:FloridaArmy's frustration that the article does not cite enough secondary sources and that this problem should be fixed. I may take a look at reference sources later and see if I can make relevant edits, though I alone cannot fix this aspect of the article. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have the feeling that we ran this tape before? Is there a way to check whether a page on this once existed, and was deleted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: It was never deleted before. (At least with the exact above title). You can always check this at Special:Log/deletion/Viewpoint (magazine) or search for any page you want. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I can't source it. If someone can, feel free to flag me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting. Prod was contested on talk page, assertions of notability made in unsigned comments were unpersuasive with the exception of a citation to a book by Steve Wright (Not one of the Steve Wrights on whom we have pages), it is out from Pluto Press (Socialist Workers Party), distributed - not published - by a university press. It asserts that Viewpoint is among the rare outlets publishing material on Workerism. I accept that in good faith, but even if true, it does not suffice to confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being well read doesn't mean notable for inclusion as there's no reliable secondary coverage of the magazine itself. Sources are the magazine itself and search returns the same including the Wikipedia article and its mirrors –Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2017 (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.