Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Energy (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). No consensus to delete has been reached. The subject probably has some marginal notability. However the merge to Eugene Mallove is not unreasonable. Ruslik (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Energy (magazine)

This is not a notable magazine. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how d'ya figure? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep around since 95 which gives some presumption of continuing importance dor a publication devoted to cold fusion. Not a sufficient criterion by itself, though. DGG (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point. However, I'll argue that all its notability is due to its creator Eugene Mallove being notable. However, I don't think that the notability of a creator necessarily rubs off on the creation. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article, so obviously I like it. It's a real magazine that is produced by real people, read by real people, has real ads. It has been around more than a decade, and has survived the death of its founder. I don't see why the heck it doesn't deserve an article; can you be more specific aside from you don't think it's notable?. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability generally means it needs to have outside press, awards, notice in third-party publications, or large circulation. I don't see any of these things associated with this particular magazine. While I have no doubt it has "real readers", "real ads", etc., I also don't think that there is sufficient independent coverage and notice of this magazine for us to be able to write a reliably sourced article on the magazine itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An energy-rich Keep It appears this magazine has been the focus of a high quantity of media coverage: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at Ecoleetage's link. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a magazine of this profile was promoting mainstream ideas, nobody would be querying its inclusion. If most of the magazine's content is regarded by most physicists as mistaken, it is sufficient for the article to say so. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its users, presuming them to be intelligent, not to suppress viewpoints its editors don't like. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the article on The Skeptic (UK magazine). No citations from reliable sources, evidence of notability etc. etc, but nobody has proposed it for deletion. Is there a double standard in operation here? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If another article seemingly fails to meet our notability criteria, go and help the project out by nominating it for deletion. You can't use the existence (or lack thereof) of other random articles to address the concerns levelled at this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "random" article; it's closely comparable. I advocate keeping both; both are just stubs. WP:OSE supports the use of comparisons in such cases; I'm trying to prompt people into examining their criteria here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Eugene Mallove. Whatever notability the magazine has, it seems to be almost completely bound up in the notability and prominence in the CF community of its creator. Nothing that I find seems to satisfy, but I would be convinced to keep by some almost-but-not-quite trivial coverage independent of Mallove. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only drawback with that idea is that Mallove is dead and the magazine isn't. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but none of the references I found treated the magazine as other than 'this thing Mallove also does'. Without any depth of coverage, there is nothing for an article to say. Is there any evidence that the magazine has done anything notable either before or after Mallove's death? It is certainly prominent to his life, but I have not found any references indicating that it should be treated separately from its creator. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eugene Mallove with no prejudice on a re-split if secondary sources are later uncovered which establish sufficient notability for a standalone article. As-is, there's insufficient material here to warrant keeping it separate, and no secondary sources have yet been added which would vouch for its independent notability from Mallove. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Barnes and Nobles bookstores carry the magazine, so it has significant readership or B&N would not handle it, it is always right there in their Science section. The magazine has published numerous articles by PhD Astrophysicists denouncing the big bang theory, and I'm sure this angers many in the big bang industry, which I believe is why some want it deleted. Notice that Science Apologist himself defends the big bang theory on the big bang discussion page, which explains why he dislikes Infinite Energy Magazine. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2008 (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.