Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerspot (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 merge‎ to Canadian Wildlife Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkerspot (magazine)

[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)

Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable defunct magazine. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also didn't find reliable sources. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Canadian Wildlife Federation. That article should have a "publications" section. There is apparently independent coverage: [1]. [I think I should point out that "self publishing" is when an author pays the cost of publishing his book. The usual objection to self publishing is that, if you have to pay someone to print your book, that implies that your book is unmerchantable and unsaleable because it is of low quality. I do not see how that logic can be applied here. The fact that a source is primary, non-independent, or even autobiographical, does not make it ipso facto self-published or necessarily completely unreliable for all purposes.] James500 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to suggested target above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 22 August 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.