Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magazines


 * 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. --Core desat 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of magazines

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As the article states: "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness" and "Given the enormous number of titles published weekly and monthly throughout the world it cannot hope to be comprehensive, but will attempt to list as many representative examples as possible." Who decides what is "representative"? This is an unweildy list of mainly nn magazines. There are thousands of magazines published in the UK alone yet this article attempts to be global. The article is full of redlinks and is, frankly, completely unhelpful. B1atv 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the idea isn't bad, this list is useless. This would actually work if you had a list of newsmagazines (Newsweek, Der Spiegel, The Economist) or a list of fashion magazines, but this is the textbook (or cover story) indiscriminate list Mandsford 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a category would work much better. When lists cannot be completed, it means they are too broad in scope and thus fairly useless and crufty. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate list, will never be even partway complete. We already have tons of magazine categories, this list will never work out. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework Needs better definition- -the meaning seems to be list of popular general interest magazines, as distinct from scholarly or trade magazines. The many ref links should probably most of them be used for the construction of articles--at least for those which are notable; this will obviously take some time. It would certainly be possible to include a description of the topic of the magazine,and thus provide the combination of country and tpic information which could not be done easily by a category. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DeletePer user Ten Pound Hammer. Tomj 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Categories will work much better here since they can be nested. shoy  02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete for same reasoning as fictional restaurant deletion. Incompletable and arbitrary.JJJ999 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categorization is a better way to deal with this info. Zaxem 09:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom., and TenPoundHammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJasper (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unmaintainable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is way too long, unmaintainable and as stated about categories of Magazines per country should be enough.-- JForget 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework per DGG. Lists and categories serve different purposes and may co-exist; see Categories, lists, and series boxes. The "incomplete list" language is from the dynamic list template, which is used on hundreds of lists on Wikipedia and so should not be a reason to delete lists, unless you are going to propose that very template itself for deletion. We have no policy for deleting lists simply because they are incomplete, "unmaintainable", or "better as a category". As for "who decides what is representative" that would be the editors of the list by consensus; but a better solution might be to change the criteria to something less subjective. If the redlinks are nonnotable, then delete them, not the whole list. Separating the list into lists of newsmagazines and fashion magazines and other genres would probably be a good idea, but indiscriminately deleting this list wouldn't help towards that goal. All of the issues with this list can be solved with editing; thus per deletion policy, we should not delete. DHowell 00:10, 29 September 2007 (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.