Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispatches (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. Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches (magazine)

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

A recently launched magazine with only three issues out yet. I have not found any notability guidelines for magazines, but my gut feeling is that a magazine this new should have a rather high notability bar, and this article does not seem to clear it. There is one secondary source: a shortish trade journal article which appears to have been written after the first issue and basically says "here's something new; it will be interesting to see how it goes". I don't think that is enough coverage to conclude notability.

I would be less skeptical about notability but for the fact that User:Dispatches intern recently created Dispatches (journal) which has been speedily deleted twice. At least the latter incarnation was quite a fluff piece when I speedy-tagged it. After the second speedy, somebody registered the account User:Angelm06 and immediately created the present article from it. This leads me to suspect that the article was created by someone connected to the magazine in real life, which weakens the default assumption of notability that comes from "somebody bothered to create a Wikipedia article about it".

CSD G11 was attempted but denied. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I added dispatches (magazine) after seeing dispatches (journal) was deleted. I am a fan of the magazine, and the editors, and feel it is indeed worthy of a wikipedia entry. I have added a couple of more references to the page. Perhaps this is not a good basis for my judgment on dispatches (magazine)m but I modeled the initial entry after Monocle (2007 magazine). If you look at the creation date for this entry, it was in the first year they began publishing, and a month or so after the first issue...Being new to wikipedia, it is unclear to me why Monocle (2007 magazine) is an okay entry but dispatches (magazine) entry "may" not be. Any suggestions, further comments are greatly appreciated.Angelm06 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - since the nomination, additional references have been added to the article to satisfy notability through coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the ones already in the article, I also found this CJR article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am convinced by the references in the article of notability. Moreover, the journal's website (though I wish it had more to say about how contributions are accepted) leads me to believe that this is not a purely commercial institution, and that a certain amount of peer review is involved. This, in turn, leads me to invoke User:S Marshall/Essay, an essay by two Wikipedians that proposes notability for, I believe, this kind of magazine. I admit that I'm in the academic business and find it more difficult to gauge this kind of publication, but I think we're staying on the safe side with by keeping this article. Angelm, I appreciate your tenacity--now start editing that article a bit more for neutral tone... PS: I'm canvassing this all the way to S Marshall. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That Reuters   covered the story indicates they think the venture notable, and they should know. DGG (talk) 05:17, 20 April 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.