Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadfly (Philosophy 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. Tiptoety ^talk 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable student magazine, with the only claim to notability being that it is the only magazine created ny undergraduate students. No reliable sourcing as well (Self-published or biased) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notibility Issues «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually like to give articles that are {{underconstruction}} a chance, but after reading the authors assertion of notability on Talk:The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) I'm afraid that this topic will never pass WP:NOTE, barring some new significant coverage. Campus magazines and blogs just aren't enough, leaving only this. --Amalthea^Talk 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
keep article needs improvement. the gadfly is quite famous and meets notability for publications once it is properly cited. Hasn't been around long enough for an afd, hasn't even been through any improvement. This does not qualify for a speedy, very clearly. It needs improvement, improvement is not a reason for afd. Notability will be established.--Buridan (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this magazine (the one reference to the Columbia Spectator hardly counts as "independent" coverage of a Columbia University publication; even then, it seems to have been mentioned only once). This is not enough for WP:N, which requires "significant" coverage in "independent" sources. The Spectator's claim that there was no undergraduate philosophy journal prior to 2006 is false (which is one reason not to count college newspapers as reliable sources): see some of the journals listed here or here. Thus, the one thing asserted to be notable about this magazine does not pan out. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Gadfly article is of interest to Wikipedia readers as an introduction to a magazine they might read or contribute to, and for information on an active and innovative philosophy publication. Most new student publications receive purely internal coverage of their activities so that seems an unfair reason for deletion. The Gadfly's own website provides PDFs of the magazines, and they are original in the realm of philosophy publications. Wikipedia should assist in making The Gadfly's activities more discussed outside of its university. I think this is a short article on a small but worthy topic, ready for expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stt2104 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that's not quite The Way of Wikipedia. An encyclopædia should cover topics that are already notable, and not assist in making them notable. I'm sure that it is a fine and interesting magazine, but it needs to have gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources first to pass the notability guidelines. It's a strict guideline, but I can't see how it is unfair. --Amalthea^Talk 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Responding to two major criticisms that are brought against this article. The first, and most important, is the objection that The Gadfly is not the first undergraduate philosophy magazine in the country. It seems the commenter does not recognize the difference between a journal and a magazine, a critical and, if one reads the publication, obvious distinction. I refer you to the summer 2008 issue of The Gadfly and any given issue of a number of undergraduate philosophy journals, take, for instance, Stanford's Dualist or Michigan's Meteorite to see the difference for yourselves (or check out any of the other journals in the link provided above ^[1]). Basically the difference is that journals accept academic papers, while The Gadfly, as a magazine, accepts a range of works and emphatically not academic papers. This difference is now explained, in greater detail, in the opening of the article. The second criticism I will respond to is the comment about the lack of credibility of the The Columbia Spectator. It is not a campus magazine, rather one of the oldest daily campus newspapers in the country, second to Harvard s Crimson and is read and taken seriously by a wide readership not limited to undergraduate students or even members of the Columbia community^[2]. Further, and more importantly, The Spectator is financially independent from Columbia University and has been since 1962 ^[3] . I'm not sure how previous commenter's feel they can justify calling this a "biased" source or if the sense in which they can has any real relevance to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that if the Gadfly's notability relies on the distinction between a journal and a magazine, its case is tenuous at best. In any case, a single article in a student newspaper does not constitute significant coverage, which is what the notability guidelines require. It might be a fine magazine, but it is at best little-known fine magazine. Stt2104 thinks that it needs to be better-known outside of its university, which is a clear sign that it is not yet notable. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. I'm not sure why RJC thinks that The Gadfly's case is tenuous based on the distinction between a journal and a magazine. The distinction may not mean very much to some readers, but it is a real and important distinction. A journal publishes academic papers accompanied with the appropriate formal notation and referencing. A magazine is not nearly as restrictive as this. The Gadfly, for example, publishes columns, interviews, feature articles, event reviews, humor pieces and information such as course listings, valuable websites, or events. Most, if not all of these things you will never find in a philosophy journal. Furthermore, the layout and design of a magazine is very different from that of a journal. A journal's top priority is content. To the extent that a journal might care about appearance, readability and convenience is the goal. A magazine such as The Gadfly focuses an equal amount of attention on aesthetic concerns and interesting, creative, design. Why do readers who don't immediately understand the distinction between a journal and a magazine suppose that the distinction does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (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.

^ http://www.earlham.edu/~phil/undjourn.htm
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator

[1] ttp://www.earlham.edu/~phil/undjourn.htm

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Daily_Spectator

[1]

[2]

[3]