Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide (Adventist 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Guide (Adventist magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable magazine Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It is notable enough. Epachamo (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Simply stating it is notable does not prove notability. Do you have any reliable secondary sources on it? Dronebogus (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NMEDIA, this article is about a periodical that has "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". Epachamo (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: The only websites that talk about this article are Seventh-day Adventist, so it fails 100%. Catfurball (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG: see, , , and . Note that the Spectrum is not controlled by the church. (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Number 2 and #4 are passing mentions; #1 appears to be about the company and not the magazine (if it features in-depth coverage, stating which pages it is on would be appreciated); only #3 definitely counts. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: You know what? I'm just voting Keep because Catfurball's delete vote is a really, really bad rationale. Yes, Seventh-Day Adventist websites talk about Seventh-Day Adventist publications. So what? — Toughpigs (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * there may be a conflict of interest? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Jewish websites talk about Jewish publications; birdwatching websites talk about birdwatching publications; paleontology websites talk about paleontology publications. This is only a problem if you think that Seventh-Day Adventists are somehow different than other medium-sized interest groups. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and if they are the only sources then the coi issue may also arise. ps. and no, i do not believe that the Adventists are somehow different. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To discount Adventist publications as having a COI only because they are Adventist is to discriminate based on religion. If, however, the same management owns both the magazine and everything that's mentioned it, that is COI and then there isn't independent sourcing. Perhaps that is what Coolabahapple is trying to say. But don't vote delete because there may be a COI. Figure it out. I concur that Catfurball's vote reasoning is out there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes GNG. So many references from reliable sources.  D My Son  14:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * please provide sources that show this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones I provided earlier?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, no one has actually shown that this magazine passes WP:GNG, only one source has been found which actually contributes to notability, with the rest being either primary sources, passing mentions or not actually about the subject. As a result, this magazine still fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (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.