Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Templar History Magazine
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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, defaulting to keep. Much of this rests on accepting the argument that further expansion is possible, given the article's young age. Shimeru 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Templar History Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable. Quarterly magazine in existence since 2001, no independent hits. Given the other articles written by the same contributor, very likely a COI violation; namely, the publisher writing about his own magazine. MSJapan 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same individual and is even less notable, being in existence only since 2005:[reply]
- This magazine has been around for six years, and is the only magazine of its kind on this subject, attracting the best researchers and authors in the area of Templar history. That alone makes it notable. I strongly disagree with your request to delete it.
- The WP entry was not written by the publisher, although I have contributed articles to his magazines. If that disqualifies me from putting a listing up about them, so be it. But if that is so, trawling through the listings of Canadian and American Magazines reveals far less notable publications, if housecleaning is really all you're up to. I would argue that EVERY WP article about magazines are little more than advertising. However, an argument can be made that as WP grows as a reference source, such listings are indispensable for writers looking a home for their articles. The webpage this listing links to is a gateway site to more than 100 past articles from the magazine under history, speculation, modern Templars and book reviews. So what's the objection? And I do contend that the Templar History website providing its past articles is a great research resource for WP readers looking for research on the Knights Templar, and not just a mere shill for pimping the magazine subscription. If an offer to subscribe is the barometer of unsuitability for WP, same argument can be made for any magazine's website. So if you have a personal gripe about it, I call a foul.
Frumious Bander 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This magazine has been around for six years, and is the only magazine of its kind on this subject, attracting the best researchers and authors in the area of Templar history. That alone makes it notable. I strongly disagree with your request to delete it.
- very weak keep You seem unsure about whether the article should be about the magazine, or the site, with a link to the magazine. could you comment? I would strongly suggest rewriting it as an article on the site, with a link to the magazine, but I want to see what else there is on the subject, since your claim to N is that it is the only magazine. I can see a list of articles--is there a list of authors? DGG 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I only brought up the website for the magazine here because MS_Japan had expressed a complaint elsewhere that the mag's website only sold subscriptions, which is not true. Sure, it's got commerce on it, but so does every other magazine's website. No, I don't think the article should be about the website, I think it needs to remain about the magazine. I don't see a list of authors on the mag's site - might be buried elsewhere on the site. I'll look around.Frumious Bander 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete besides abovementioned, if it were rolled up with Masonic Magazine and all of the other North American Masonic publications, it would still be a section of an article. OK, all of them, maybe an article. Grye 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now. It's a "new" article and maybe there's more to say. THere's quite a few Ghits... so I'm tempted to say, let's keep it for now and see where it goes. - grubber 17:41, 1 April 2007 (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.