Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investors Chronicle


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Investors Chronicle

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


 * Delete - Non-notable "investment" magazine. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn, see my last comment below.  NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sure what's with the scare quotes as this magazine, run by the Financial Times, is quite clearly about investment. We're talking about a publication which has been produced on a weekly basis for nearly 150 years.   Clearly, over this long history, there have been plenty of sources written about it, although finding them between the hundreds of sources that simply quote text out of it will be time consuming.  One useful source would probably be this biography of Brendan Bracken, a former owner of the magazine.  Other sources include Temple First Steps in Shares, Michie The London Stock Exchange and other books similar to these two. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This may be the case, but it has to be established with sources. I nominated it because it is very similar to the MoneyWeek article, a publication which is on WP's blacklist for spam.  They seem to have the same scope, but this one has less circulation... so if that one's not notable this one may be less so.  If you can find sources that's good.  The history may be the only interesting thing about it.  If no sources showing true notability can be found though, perhaps it should simply be merged into Financial Times.  NJGW (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Money Week is on the blacklist for spam because so many spammers link to it, not because it isn't notable. (And actually, perhaps we should reconsider it, because it also has suitable material for non-spammers as well. We should instead go after individual mis-use.) They are notable, and so is this. A 33,000 circulation in the uK is v. substantial for a publication of this sort, & equivalent to a larger circulation in the US--they are essentially different spheres of the world in this respect. If we're going to go my comparisons, the largest 5 or 10 publications in each subject area in each individual country should have articles. DGG (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then, let's have some sources besides just the circulation numbers. Something needs to establish that this warrants it's own article.  NJGW (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, according to one source, I added circulation was once twice as high. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article meets WP:BK criterion #1. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does BK apply only to books? This isn't a book.  NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A Financial Times publication, into which judging from the website a lot of work and attention has been put. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination has obviously fails WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current refs which have been found are still only tell us about the circulation, a few lines about history, and are directly covering the parent company. Still no direct coverage of this topic has been shown.  I was going to withdraw this nom when I saw more refs had been found, but when I read them I saw that they are not yet convincing.  Suggest you also look over the article and read it's refs and decide for yourself if they are really enough.  NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is an article with the headline "'Investors Chronicle' put on sale by Pearson" not about the subject? And notability is an attribute of the article subject, not of the article as it currently exists. Looking over the article is not the way to determine notabilty; looking for sources, such as these and these is. Please don't ask me to identify specific sources amongst those. I'm not going to read them all to identify exactly how many thousand of them are independent and reliable and have significant coverage, because it's just as easy for you to do that as it is for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the three books I gave details of above? Sure, they may be about other topics, but they do include non-trivial coverage of this magazine while doing so. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The other sources before didn't assert notability, but this one does. I have withdrawn the nomination.  NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 February 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.