Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filter (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. (non-admin closure) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=[[Filter (magazine)]]=

:{{la|Filter (magazine)}} ([{{fullurl:Filter (magazine)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filter (magazine)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article has existed for over 3 years, and in that time not a single independent reliable source has been cited for verifiability or to prove the notability of the magazine. Speaking of notability, the text of the article does not assert why the subject is notable for inclusion which technically qualifies it for speedy deletion under criteria A7. I am refraining from speedying this article given that it has been around for 3 years and I think the subject is actually notable. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Per New York Times citing of the magazing (one example is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/arts/music/15south.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq&st=cse"filter%20magazine"&scp=3] ). Collect (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

::Hm, someone should probably cite that source (and more like it!) in the article. 16px Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – As shown here [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Filter+(magazine)%22&sa=N&start=20] Google News believes they exist, as they use them as one of their Aggregator. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a publication that exists and is widely distributed. The demand for third-party sourcing crosses into bias against some publications, just because they don't have coverage in Brittanica or whatever. In this case, as noted the NY Times has cited it, and that's enough (obviously the citation should be added where applicable). 23skidoo (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

: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.