Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (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)

A non notable Theosophy magazine that has never had any reliable sources. The 3 sources on the article austheos.org.au all link to an offline website managed by the Theosophical Society. The magazine has no academic or scholarly coverage. Per lack of independent reliable sources the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the primary subject of Ferguson, Christine (2020). "The Luciferian Public Sphere: Theosophy and Editorial Seekership in the 1880s". Victorian Periodicals Review. 53 (1): 76–101. doi:10.1353/vpr.2020.0012. ISSN 1712-526X. It also has significant coverage in Morrisson, Mark S. (2007). "The Periodical Culture of the Occult Revival: Esoteric Wisdom, Modernity and Counter-Public Spheres". Journal of Modern Literature. 31 (2): 1–22. ISSN 0022-281X. Chapter 5 of Beauchesne, Nicholas L. (Spring 2021). "Adepts of Modernism: Magical Magazine Culture, 1887-1922". ERA. doi:10.7939/r3-6q13-d562. Retrieved 2024-01-07. is devoted to it, although this is a doctoral dissertation so per WP:SCHOLARSHIP should not be given as much weight as other sources. Citations from these sources may reveal additional coverage. Jfire (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -whilst at this temporal remove a lot of potential sources are hardly disinterested -see for example "Open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, archived 2007-10-08". www.theosophische-informationsstelle.de., the title of the publication drew extensive criticism both contemporaneously and since, (as evidenced by a simple search), much of which will provide further source material. Yadsalohcin (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst fixing no target errors I've taken the opportunity to add archive urls to the article. They are all just listings so don't add anything to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions about the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources from Jfire appear to demonstrate significant coverage of this article's subject by multiple independent reliable sources. As such, this magazine appears to pass the general notability guideline, and it seems reasonable to keep it. The content could be improved, but there is certainly scholarly coverage, contrary to as stated in nom's rationale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 21 January 2024 (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.