Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bound & Gagged (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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bound & Gagged (magazine)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this magazine. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This gay B&D magazine does not seem to be the subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage — or any, it would seem, unless one counts the "Best Of" book. The now-deceased editor of the magazine, Robert W. Davolt might clear the notability bar, at least some chance of that. If anyone feels strongly about this material, I'd suggest launching the bio and merging in information there. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find secondary source coverage in Toronto Star, and The Bay Area Reporter. There are additionally lots of results in books, including Of Men, Ropes and Remembrance: Stories from Bound & Gagged Magazine, and A Queer Geography: Journeys Toward a Sexual Self. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything about this in the first source and the second source is about a book. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second source merely mentions this magazine in the context of reviewing a book by one of its former columnists, so definitely not "significant coverage". postdlf (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sooooo... Let's delete the article, then start a new article, not about the magazine, but about the editor; then find an admin willing to provide a copy of the deleted article, and then merge the information from this article (which, of course, needed to be deleted) into that article? Only on Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one even said that the editor was notable for sure. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 25 July 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.