Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaigns and Elections

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns and Elections[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. only purpose is to promote the founder and this one. From tone of article to intentions everything is blatant promotions. Light2021 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may need improvement, this is a publication which has been published since 1980 (first in print and now online) and has been subscribed to by hundreds of libraries. The magazine itself is considered reliable enough to be cited in books published by university presses. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Metropolitan90. bd2412 T 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable long-time publication which is the journal of record for those in the U.S. political industry. A few notes: the search hints above may be inaccurate since the publication's title is Campaigns & Elections rather than Campaigns and Elections (the article should be moved accordingly, but I think that can wait until this discussion is resolved). Also, the publication was known as Politics magazine beginning in 2008 (not sure when it changed back), so that would impact search terms as well. There are good sources out there-I've added a few-but they are harder to find online due to the prevalence of the term "campaigns and elections." Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for sure. SL93 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually fairly content with blowing up and starting over, but the article meets notability standards and won't take long to clean up in its current state. DrStrauss talk 15:57, 11 July 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.