Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pen & Quill

: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. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[The Pen & Quill]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pen & Quill}}

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

Completely self-referenced. Not notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It's discussed a bit here [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ahw0AAAAMAAJ&q=The+Pen+%26+Quill&dq=The+Pen+%26+Quill&lr=&pgis=1] and appears to have lots of mentions in various newspapers here [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=The+Pen+%26+Quill+autographs&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8] according to google news, indicating it is a notable publication in its field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:::In my experience newspapers and magazines rarely write much about other newspapers and magazines. So while I agree the coverage isn't very substantial, the coverage does seem to assert that this publication is an authority and well repected in its field. As such it seems reasonable to include it. How many well established decades old publications on autographs are there after all? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

::Comment - I have historical NYT archives. The publication is only mentioned because they talk to the editor of the magazine. The actual article doesn't talk about the publication at all. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment addendum There are also quite a few stories that mention the parent club: [http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=Universal+Autograph+Collector%27s+Club] ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Addendum to addendum As noted in this NYT story [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE0D7123EF934A25755C0A9679C8B63&fta=y&scp=2&sq=Universal%20Autograph%20Collectors%20Club&st=cse], "The Universal Autograph Collectors Club, the largest nonprofit autograph collectors' association, lists more than 200 registered dealers," the group appears to be quite notable even if their publication isn't. So a merge to a new article about the club would also be a good option. The more I look into it the less I think deletion is a good outcome. But maybe someone has a different take? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep seems to be notable, based on what documentation there is. DGG (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (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.