Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timbres 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. no clear consensus after several relistings. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timbres magazine[edit]

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

Unsourced for years, nothing to really indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My French is poor but if it really is one of the two major French philatelic magazines and has the history the article suggests then I think it is notable. Improving the article would be preferable to deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether what the article suggests is indeed correct is what we are here for to determine. Our article has no sources. The French WP article has some, but apart from a snippet on France Info nothing of importance either. A Google search gets lots of hits, but apart from WP and its mirrors, most are commercial sites selling subscriptions plus a few blogs. No sources means, unfortunately, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to what is wrong with the sources in GBooks. For the avoidance of doubt, I am minded to view this magazine, and the four magazines that were apparently merged to form it, as a single topic for the purposes of notability. James500 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that no explanation about the sources in GBooks has been given because you're the only one seeing them. Care to explain which sources you're talking about that show significant coverage?? The book by Bernhard Grzimek published before 1923? The one marked as being based on WP? The in-passing mentions in others? Or the handful of citations to articles in this magazine? Any sources about any of the predecessor magazines? --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL James500 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New refs added. A minor one by me and this one by User:Ww2censor which discusses all three former magazines and Timbres. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but neither of those seems to constitute significant coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we insist on "significant coverage" not only will we have to delete this article but the articles for 1000s of other magazines and publications. As you know, people don't tend to write articles about magazines. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, which is why I myself only bring magazine articles to AfD in rare cases. But once we're here, we have to apply the guidelines, which call for significant coverage... We have some decent guidelines for academic journals (inclusion into selective databases), but we lack something similar for magazines, which are rarely included in similar (selective) databases. I have no solution for this, but cannot !vote other than "delete" just because I like articles on magazines... --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to apply them. James500 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of IAR, because it inevitably leads to subjective judgments. It should not be up to a few wiki editors like you or me to decide what they like to include or not. Unless, of course, you think we should do away with the whole concept of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is subjective. James500 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we can use judgement as to how strictly we interpret the rules. This is the continuation of a magazine first published by Le Monde in 1946 which has a couple of decent sources and probably a lot more if we could add the offline French language ones. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

France & Colonies Philatelic Society of Great Britain published an index in 2004. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good sources for the predecessor magazines, I would certainly see that as counting towards notability of the successor magazine, given the continuity of publication. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 3 October 2014 (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) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (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.