Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka (Times 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. The keep argument does not reflect policy and the source analysis and delete arguments are compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka (Times magazine)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I prodded this with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, article has not been improved, so here we go. At best this could be redirected to The_Times#Related_publications where the subject is mentioned (I'd do so myself but given the PROD was simply removed with no redirect I expect redirecting would be challenged, plus I dislike stealth deletion by redirecting w/ no discussion). And hey, maybe someone can dig up something I missed and rescue this as a stand-alone entry? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic appears as a detailed case study in the book Designing News and won a gold medal for design, being described as "Maybe the best magazine in the world". So, as usual, this is a failure of WP:BEFORE and our policy WP:ATD applies – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The award from Society for News Design seems very niche. The source is effectively a press release (an announcement from the SfND) and the organization page does not suggest it is even notable in the current state. The book seems more relevant, and there seem to be something on pages 92-96, which have a heading case study: eureka / the times, but unless someone can get access and confirm there is substantive analysis, we are rather close to WP:GOOGLEHITS. Anyway, I would say that the book is probably a good source, but the award, sourced to a press release, is niche and irrelevant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two sources in the article are the magazine itself, and a source that doesn't mention the magazine (from the link or from a search). Andrew's sources per usual are not SIGCOV. The magazine did not win a gold medal, the Times of London did for their design, the article has a few comments from the judges, definitely not SIGCOV. The Google books again is about the Times of London design of the magzine with no SIGCOV about the actual subject - the magazine. // Timothy :: talk 13:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the design of something is obviously coverage of the thing in question and so those sources are certainly WP:SIGCOV. The quotation above makes this clear, "Maybe the best magazine in the world". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, The quotation would be more convincing if it wasn't sourced to a press release. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 14 March 2021 (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.