Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authority (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 delete. This is a prime example of WP:NOTAVOTE. By strength of arguments, consensus is that this topic is not encyclopedically notable. The quality or lack of quality of the publication is irrelevant to notability. None of the keep arguments have made a case that the topic meets GNG or any other notability requirement, not even COMMONSENSE. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Authority (Magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An outlet which churns dozens of pr articles. Fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep What the content of the magazine is should not matter, that it exists and has a fairly high read rate and notable content where many of the article subjects have their own Wikipedia articles, is the point. This puts out profiles on notable people - not very different than Entrepreneur Magazine, Hampton Magzine etc.Fairlysimple (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Authority Magazine is all about interviews focused on giving advice to the reader. It's an incredible publication and what is being said about it is completely false. 2601:704:100:FA70:1545:8B65:2F56:1EAE (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles are written for the reader, not for PR purposes. 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP! 2600:1700:7DB0:5340:B554:3A47:41ED:A34 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep When you write, "churns out PR articles", are you referring to the articles that Authority Magazine produces, or the fact that some interviewees put out PR articles on PR Wires about the interview. If you mean the content that Authority Magazine produces, I'd like to politely beg to differ. Please look at the content they produce, all the interviews are reader-facing and are giving advice to the reader rather than promote a company. Please see these as examples:
 * https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=The%20Great%20Resignation%20%26%20The%20Future%20Of%20Work%3A
 * https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=Effective%20Leader%20Turbulent
 * https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=Female%20Founders%3A
 * Here is the complete list of interview topics
 * https://medium.com/authority-magazine/ongoing-interview-series-in-authority-magazine-7d633a349753
 * If you mean that interviewees release PR articles on PR wires, that is out of the control of Authority Magazine's staff, and this is a common practice done when any publication like Entrepreneur or Forbes does an interview  PaulPachad (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — PaulPachad (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The *content* of the magazine is not actually relevant in any way. It could publish air conditioner user manuals - the question is whether the magazine is reliably covered in reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG) or NCORP. Not finding that. No evidence of notability has been shown so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are several examples where it is cited in reliable, independent sources
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/arts/television/willie-garson-dead.html
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/09/20/biden-was-right-the-diversity-of-the-hispanic-market-creates-confusion-for-brands/?sh=373df850f3b9
 * https://www.fastcompany.com/90740236/psychedelic-companies-are-betting-big-on-ketamine-as-the-next-prozac
 * https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/charlotte-kirk-actress-center-ron-001516547.html
 * https://www.today.com/parents/why-willie-garson-adopted-his-son-nathen-garson-t231855
 * https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/willie-garsons-son-nathen-shares-throwback-video-after-death/
 * https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-willie-garson-dead-illness-20210922-dmkugotjpjg4na4at5sg4dbjbm-story.html
 * https://www.vanityfair.it/people/mondo/2021/09/23/willie-garson-storia-decisione-adottare-bambino-papa-single PaulPachad (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Authority Magazine is cited in authoritative sources such as Yahoo News. Here is a sample: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-women-leaders-finance-shares-150000186.html. Better to improve the article and ensure it conforms with Wikipedia guidelines. Owoyed (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Again, the content is as much read and informative as any other business profile magazine. What makes it relevant is that people of note, people of influence and people who are written about here OM Wikipedia itself submit to interviews and stories. Some may not like it, but it's a bona fide journal.2600:1001:B129:B6DA:D8B3:C29:6874:513A (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1001:B129:B6DA:D8B3:C29:6874:513A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment See Sockpuppet investigations/Fairlysimple. Jsfodness (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The content is educational and informative. And then a reason why the challenge is wrong and why they should keep it. 96.232.247.134 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep! great interviews with reputable interviewees, on important relevant topics AaronTwo12fashion (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Their interviews really are educational for the reader and also had so many reputable guests join them for interviews. Not everyone is going to like the content or style of a publication but it doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate publication. 75.80.159.95 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hundreds of interviews have ranged from cancer survivor stories, resourcing touted cancer doctors, themes in the area of resilience and overcoming the fear of failure. These are human interest and self-help topics that benefit not only the reader, but collectively showcase the human spirit to endure and overcome. These are not promotional pieces, they help to motivate, inspire and offer hope. 69.127.214.77 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP
 * The content is relevant and it is very helpful to the readers. I was actually featured in one of the articles, "I Survived Cancer and Here is How I Did It". Many people shared with me how helpful my story was as well as the stories of others in the interview series. The topics are important and relevant! They also let people know that they are not alone when facing real life challenges! 2601:444:8300:6470:B8B2:C984:AC68:6DDC (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this publication. It is relevant to all of society and should not be deleted for unambiguous reasons. It is educational, relevant and a legitimate publication. 2604:5500:41C0:EE00:FD1D:58E9:E2BF:E351 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP
 * It publishes an array of well researched, superbly communicated information that features the voices of incredible though leaders across different industries that help readers gain relevant and pertinent knowledge. 104.172.21.245 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer This AfD has been WP:CANVASSED by several IPs with 0-1 edits outside this AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Reference to Willie Garson's interview in Authority is not GNG level coverage, and they do not acquire notability from their subjects. A BEFORE provides no indication that Authority has been discussed as a notable magazine. Star   Mississippi  02:46, 25 May 2022 (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.