Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriarch 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. &mdash; Joseph Fox 22:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Patriarch magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Orphaned stub on an obscure and defunct magazine. No evidence of significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article seems to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. A periodical that has ceased publication can still be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article was once titled Phil Lancaster (the name of the magazine's publisher is more frequently given as Phillip Lancaster), and perhaps the article should be moved to the person's full name. I have added some references, which I think establish notability for both the magazine and the person. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You added two low-quality affiliated sources and one very brief passing mention. That does not add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of either the man or the magazine. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perhaps I should mention that I do not support the ideology of the magazine or its founder. A topic can be notable and icky at the same time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sad that you think it necessary to point this out. It really shouldn't make any difference in a discussion. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: that a magazine is defunct means that (i) it is not creating new reasons for third parties to write about it & (ii) the longer it has been defunct, the less likely new material will be written about it. Given the scarcity of existing material (let alone "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), I would suggest that this is one more nail in the coffin. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on references, and that fact that it is a magazine that published for that length of time, I think it can meet or has met wp:notability. Article also contains useful information. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2011 (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.