Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission of Mercy Magazine: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Keep''' - I have researched other articles about magazines. The articles in many fields including art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_magazines seem to be equally unsourced similar to this article under discussion. I used their format when creating this page. Perhaps most of them should be deleted--some have been listed for years. It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility. Thus said, efforts should be made to improve this magazine article and thousands of others. [[User:Rak-Tai|รัก-ไทย]] ([[User talk:Rak-Tai|talk]]) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - I have researched other articles about magazines. The articles in many fields including art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_magazines seem to be equally unsourced similar to this article under discussion. I used their format when creating this page. Perhaps most of them should be deleted--some have been listed for years. It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility. Thus said, efforts should be made to improve this magazine article and thousands of others. [[User:Rak-Tai|รัก-ไทย]] ([[User talk:Rak-Tai|talk]]) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps they should be deleted, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Please see [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. If "It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility(sic)" then it follows that they may not be notable. [[User:Kuguar03|Kuguar03]] ([[User talk:Kuguar03|talk]]) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:50, 2 January 2012
- Mission of Mercy Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD tag removed by OP. As Admin, I restored a hasty speedy and told the editor to work on sources with time in a PROD. He removed it instead. Article is a bout a religious magazine with no ghits other than its own and social media (facebook and blogs). The links the OP provided do not address the notability issue, commenting on the founder and not on why the organization is notable. Seems to me it's just one more church-related charitable organization with its own advertising media (the magazine). Alexf(talk) 12:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I was the editor who originally nominated this for speedy delete. Nothing's changed since then - no claim of notability and no independent sources. Like Alexf I wasn't able to find any evidence in my own research that suggests this could be a notable topic. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I have researched other articles about magazines. The articles in many fields including art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_magazines seem to be equally unsourced similar to this article under discussion. I used their format when creating this page. Perhaps most of them should be deleted--some have been listed for years. It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility. Thus said, efforts should be made to improve this magazine article and thousands of others. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps they should be deleted, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If "It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility(sic)" then it follows that they may not be notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)