Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism Magazine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I've converted the prod for this into AfD, mainly on the grounds that the article has been on Wikipedia for so long - since April 2003 - and has been edited by so many editors that deletion can't be totally uncontroversial. I have looked for reliable sources myself, and while it has been cited in news media and discussed in passing once or twice, nothing has been written about it in depth - at least, nothing I can find.

Prod reasoning was "Does not appear to meet notability standards, and does not appear to meaningfully assert notability. They run syndicated pieces from a few notable authors--that's nowhere near the same as having Thomas Sowell as a direct contributor" and "No indication that subject meets the notability criteria for web content." Fences &amp;  Windows  20:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I prodded it, and I stand by the reasoning in my PROD, which F&W has been kind enough to repost. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm the one who seconded the prod. The site does not meet any of the notability criteria for web content. It has not been the subject of other works, it has not won any awards, and it is not distributed by an independent source. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete - The website doesn't seem to meet the web notability criteria. Having said that, it has been quoted by numerous notable news organisations (like FOX) and the contributors seem to be notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I got about 70 gnews hits. About 60 of them were for the actual magazine. Mainly references to articles in it by other news publications or to writers for the magazine. Has several notable writers, including Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Edwin A. Locke, Edward Cline, Michael J. Hurd and others. Certainly no fly-by-night start up. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sowell and Williams have syndicated columns that are published there--that's not nearly the same thing as writing FOR them. Furthermore, notability is not inherited. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's not inherited, nor did I make that assertion. I said they have a number of notable writers, indicating that they are legitimate. And syndicated or not, I found several news mentions of Williams and Sowell being referenced as saying "XYX in Capitalism magazine". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - an informative well-written article on a web-magazine with numerous citations by notable media sources. Indeed, the fact that so many editors have had cause to edit this article over the years does speak to notability to the extent that the subject doesn't veer into fandom, which this topic certainly does not. Zachlipton (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not a notable site. I don't see anything notable about it. Kingturtle (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't know what value an article has. What more would a user want to know about them that isn't explicit on the website itself? --Karbinski (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Karbinski here. -RLCampbell (talk) 01:52, 31 July 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.