Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magazines of anomalous phenomena


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of magazines of anomalous phenomena

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are loosely related magazines. What constitutes an "anomalous phenomenon" anyway? Should we include the National Enquirer or Weekly World News or Mad Magazine since those quirky, off-beat publications often discuss ostensibly "anomalous phenomena"? I guess my point is that there is no way to select this list without applying original research value judgments about what the magazines are "about". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. List is clearly of use and of interest, and provides valuable information that, at a glance, appears accurate. The questions of what should and shouldn't be included are definitely significant ones, but they do not seem to me unsolvable ones, and the sort of judgments that are required are ones that, to my mind, very few articles can be written without making. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vague (at best) inclusion criteria. I've seen a lot of "anomalous phenomena" in the New York Times... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the case that the magazines listed are all primarily devoted to anomalous phenomena. That seems to me to be a clear inclusion criterion. Certainly I do not think it takes a particularly problematic leap of judgment to include the Fortean Times and drop the New York Times. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird NJ pops out as the poster child for what's wrong with this article. Are their "anomalous phenomena" in WNJ? Depending on your definition, almost certainly. But is it about whatever "anomalous phenomena" are? Hardly. In WNJ and its sister pubs (WPa, etc.) I've seen stories about a tombstone visible to divers in the footing of a bridge. (Not at all "anomalous", it was used as fill.) I've seen stories on concrete ships. (A failed experiment by the U.S. Navy.) When cell phone towers semi-disguised as trees went up, they went in. WNJ is about "weird" stuff, not "anomalous" stuff. EVERYTHING in a magazine is anomalous to one degree or another: if it didn't deviate in some way from what we expect, no one would write about it. Time doesn't mention the sunrises that occurred since their last issue, just the variations from everything that you knew would happen. Yeah, I "get" what you mean by "anomalous phenomena", but the "I know it when I see it" definition being used doesn't work in wikipedia. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. Remove WNJ. If nobody objects, problem solved. If someone does object, hash it out with them, since clearly the concept of "anomalous phenomena" is well enough defined to work with. Deletion is unnecessary here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from original creator: I'm not wedded to this article's existence, but I think the field of anomalous phenomena (or Forteana) is pretty clearly defined, and that the nomination is factually incorrect to that degree - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep this does not appear to be a case of WP:DIRECTORY because it is a list of links to other related wikipedia articles. The addition of URLs is just a benefit of stand-alone lists over categories.  The lead selection criteria should be more explicitly defined as per Wikipedia:Stand Alone Lists, but the publications seem to have some sort of relationship, though not being familiar with the field, I can't say what it is. -Verdatum (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, though I'd be up for a broader list on media on the subject. But simply limiting it to magazines, a loose assortment at that, makes it too much like a directory. Spell4yr (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - both for NOTDIRECTORY and because this oddly-demarcated list is more appropriate as a category. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject covered adequately by Category:Paranormal magazines, this adds little beyond a directory of external links. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This does further sub-divide the magazines with more precision than would be appropriate for a category. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it could indeed be considered redundant to the cat - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a reasonable enough list that goes beyond what a category can provide, so should be kept per WP:CLN.  Klausness (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Phil Sandifer —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a useful list, just needs the redlink entries removed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, why? The ability to put in red links is an important advantage of list articles over a category - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability. If they're notable enough to be on Wikipedia, they should have stubs created. If not, they're not notable enough to be on the list. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is a policy for article topics, not for mentioning things. Furthermore, redlinks exist to encourage stub creation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose, I just fear having to demonstrate notability one by one, but if other editors would prefer that, we can go with it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there are times when we do include red links, as for things of this sort which are not intrinsically important individually, but are valuable content in a more general article. There's considerably more information that could be added to show their relative importance, such as year of founding (and perhaps of ceasing) and, sometimes, circulation. DGG (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (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.