Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Lines (magazine)
From 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. There are some issues on both sides that are valid but despite having been re-listed, there is no consensus to delete this article. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Civil Lines (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnotable magazine. Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/ is sufficiently selective and competent that having an article there is a sign of notability. Chimurengal Library is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand I do not think this article is promotional nor trivial and refs may be hard to find. But remember Wikipedia is not a mirror . --triwbe (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not see discussion at the Wikipedia:Notability or precedent in AFD outcomes that something having an article in "Chimurengal Library" automatically makes it notable enough to have the inherent right to an article in Wikipedia. I do not see multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of Civil Lines (magazine). The argument presented by Triwbe that Wikipedia is not a mirror actually supports deleting the article rather than keeping it. Edison2 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I removed a speedy tag from this as it asserts notability, but even allowing for systemic bias I can't find usable independent sources for it, so sadly it needs to go. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep multiple independent mentions [1], [2] and publishes well known writers such as Amit Chaudhuri, Amitava Kumar etc. [3] adds up to definite definite notability.--Bsnowball (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —--Bsnowball (talk) 08:05, 5 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.