Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Days (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Seven Days (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seven Days (magazine)

Article on magazine that does not satisfy magazine notability or general notability. Created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Hey man im josh as not ready for article space. Then created again in article space by originator. The draft has now, reasonably, been cut down to a redirect to the article, but the article does not establish notability.

A check of the references shows that none of them provide significant coverage of the magazine. One is a passing mention. One is an upload of a page from the magazine to Commons. One is a lengthy report that does not appear to be related. Draftification, with instructions to use the AFC review process, is a reasonable alternative to deletion, but the originator has already disagreed with that option. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify until the article is accepted at AFC. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am trying to fix an error on Wikipedia. There is a newspaper in Vermont called Seven Days, established in 1995. Many of the people who worked for Seven Days, the magazine that appeared from 1977 to 1979, inaccurately had links to that newspaper as there was no Wikipedia entry. The magazine masthead had a who's who of prominent socialists from the 1970s, many of who have Wikipedia entries. It was founded by David Dellinger of the Chicago Seven. I am merely trying to correct the misimpression left on the site that they worked for the Vermont newspaper. I admit there is not much online material that could quickly be found on Seven Days the magazine -- I noticed the error while reading the Wikipedia entry for Barbara Ehrenreich after she died this week. I hope to find more references and sources to build up the entry but in the meantime Wikipedia should not have incorrect links, should it? Thank you for your consideration. Congha2540 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Re the third reference, that was a famous interview, a big scoop, published by Seven Days. The reference to the interview appears on page 20 of the report with a citation to the magazine.Congha2540 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to David Dellinger, whom sources most often seem to mention as the founder and editor of the magazine.  The poor state of sourcing presently in the article (primary sources and passing mentions) do not count towards notability, but current sourcing is not a criterion for deletion per WP:NEXIST. While the magazine appears to have had notable writers and editors, after searching newspaper archives and the Internet Archive I have yet to find significant coverage of the magazine itself that can't be easily added to an existing article or two as needed. A couple sentences—a paragraph at most—at David Dellinger is probably sufficient. Individual noteworthy accomplishments by contributors might be better presented at the authors' articles. Wikilinks to non-notable publications might simply be omitted, with the magazine explained in text if necessary (humans were able to read information just fine for centuries before the invention of hyperlinks). Searching for coverage of the magazine is hampered by its commonplace title, but for future reference it is also known as Sevendays and Seven Days Magazine. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the repeated confusion between this publication and the existing Seven Days newspaper, doesn't it make since to have a separate entry, even if it was limited? I'm not sure a redirect to David Dellinger would necessarily sold that problem and it could easily be missed by people. Seven Days was supposed to be a competitor to In These Times which still exists and has a Wikipedia page. In the pre-Internet age, there would not have been much coverage in mainstream media of socialist publications; now such a publication would gain notice with an active Twitter account. Given how Seven Days was a launching pad for many notable people, I would still argue it deserves an entry. I have been traveling but hope to build this up further. Congha2540 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The potential for confusion with other publications is not a notability guideline. If a topic lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, whether currently or in pre-internet times, then per general notability guidelines a stand-alone article is unwarranted. If other articles incorrectly link to Seven Days (newspaper), they can simply be unlinked and defined in context, e.g. "Joe Blow wrote for the short-lived socialist magazine Seven Days in the 1970s." Or, if Seven Days (magazine) becomes a redirect (e.g. R from work), the link will still work, and a sentence or two at the target article will give necessary context. For what it's worth, I found a somewhat more than trivial mention in a 1977 issue of Working Papers for a New Society (another short-lived leftist publication), but that alone doesn't demonstrate independent notability, and again I think any encyclopedic content can easily be distilled into an existing article, or simply mentioned in text.  --Animalparty! (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Would a redirect or move to Draft space be acceptable to all? Also, please look at the recent improvements to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph detailing how Seven Days published an article on the technology of hydrogen bomb, forcing the government to abandon its prior restraint case against The Progressive magazine. This was an important first-amendment case and I think bolsters the case for keeping this entry and not deleting it. Congha2540 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I don't think the recent additions are improvements, or any closer to demonstrating notability. It doesn't matter one bit how much we as editors think a subject should have it's own article. The Washington Post reprinting a portion of a Seven Days article is largely a Primary source and does not alone demonstrate the significance of the article in the broader Progressive lawsuit. Tying together disparate passing mentions and primary sources and synthesizing or inferring significance (e.g. implying that Seven Days was instrumental in United States v. Progressive Inc. when sources like this do not make the claim) risks original research, or at the very least, giving undue coverage to things before their time (if you were to write an article on the significance of Seven Days and get it published elsewhere, that would then provide a significant secondary source that an encyclopedia could summarize). We as Wikipedians cannot connect the dots that haven't already been connected, or tell stories that haven't been told. As an analogy, imagine a local news reporter or radio announcer in your hometown. The whole city may know their name, maybe they've written some popular or controversial articles and occasionally get quoted in national news. Evidence of their education, family members, and life events might be found in local newspaper clippings. All of this may be verifiable in reliable sources, and perhaps additional biographic info could be gleaned from public records, their Twitter feed, or digging through their trash, but when stung together does not demonstrate the subject has received significant secondary attention. An article can't just be a list of articles that have appeared in the magazine, nor a list of writers. I'm not against draftification, as there certainly is a possibility that substantial coverage exists somewhere, but a redirect would also allow for future expansion should sufficient sources be found. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair point re the connection to the dropping of the Progressive case. The article cited the publication of articles in newspapers and I should not have assumed that the Washington Post article was one of those cited. Upon conducting more research, I see that the H-bomb article, intended to be satire, was later picked up by would-be terrorists and then CIA used their access to the article to justify the success of the torture program. I don't think this story can be adequately covered in a redirect to Dave Dellinger --since he did not write the article in question -- and I remain puzzled at the reluctance to accept an entry on this publication. Congha2540 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to David Dellinger as suggested above; I agree that the current sources do not demonstrate notability, but I think this redirect could be useful. Hatman31 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am hoping the additional detail on how the H-bomb article (not written by Dellinger) became a factor in Gitmo detentions convinces you that this entry meets notability requirements. Congha2540 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was enough on its own, but that combined with the additions by Cielquiparle makes me think there's enough coverage to keep the article. Hatman31 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is noteworthy content regarding a single article (e.g. the H-bomb article), it can be mentioned at Binyam Mohamed or José Padilla (criminal). We don't need a whole article just to coat-rack individual articles that have a passing mention of the name "Seven Days". What I see here is the equivalent of taping newspaper scraps to a wall and calling it comprehensive coverage. As another example: say there is an elementary school in a notable town that has several notable alumni, but no reliable source has ever significantly covered the school (maybe it closed long ago, or was so unremarkable that it never got significant coverage). To scrape together an article that says little more than "X was an elementary school. In 19XX Joe Athlete attended. In 19XX Fred Business Mogul was a substitute teacher there. In 19XX Jane Hollywood attended, and in a 2005 interview said "I had great teachers there". In 19XX it appeared in the background of a fast food commercial by [notable company]. In 19XX it was one of 2 dozen county schools fumigated for termites." is what is called a WP:COATRACK article (the notable alumni or tangential events are the coats). An encyclopedia article should not resemble a scrapbook or bulletin board of loosely related facts. Encyclopedia articles on magazines should not be mere lists of articles or authors, but of course the magazine can be mentioned in other articles as necessary, wikilinks or no. And adding section dividers or textual padding doesn't make a subject any more notable. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. OK to keep now. Single best in-depth source identified by was the 1977 Working Papers for a New Society article. To satisfy WP:GNG, would also point to 1976 article in The Los Angeles Times and the 1979 Herald News article on Seven Days's role in the H-bomb parody article controversy (a topic which could probably justify having its own separate page with more detail). (The 1977 article in The New York Daily News is also helpful but strictly speaking it is mostly interview-driven (i.e., largely based on quotes from Dellinger and "according to Dellinger"), so not as helpful from an independence point of view. Several problematic sources (e.g. Daily Mail and NameBase) have been removed by multiple editors, and blatant copyvio passages (e.g. cut-and-paste from Washington Post and Guardian) have been removed. Yes, it feels like we're still missing some key sources for this article, particularly from books, but for now this is sufficient to keep the article, and in the meantime I might add a few more "passing mention" type sources with important details so I wanted to pause to point to the more substantive pieces of coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the extensive editing and additional sources you have added. The entry is much improved. Thank you. I wonder why you removed all references to the H-bomb article becoming a factor in detention of alleged terrorists. It would seem relevant that the government took this seriously. If I erred in quoting from articles, it could at least be summarized, correct? Congha2540 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much detail for a Wikipedia article about Seven Days magazine which appears to have closed by 1980. The actual H-bomb article controversy including its possible impact decades later is a huge topic that might warrant its own standalone article in the future, but it's too much detail in the context of this one. The magazine published hundreds of other important articles besides this. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, on second thought – a single sentence summarizing the fact that it caused everyone to mention the article and the magazine again decades later seems reasonable. But I also wouldn't overdo it. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep following improvements. Mccapra (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per User:Animalparty. Coverage right now, including of the H-bomb stuff, is just not in-depth enough, and/or specifically focused on the subject. I'm a huge fan of us having all possible articles on publications--magazines, newspapers, journals, etc--but it's not here for this article. User:Congha2540, this just isn't helpful: it looks like you're beefing up the article hoping that sheer mass will lead to it being kept, but this had no secondary sourcing and doesn't prove anything. User:Mccapra, I don't see the improvements you're seeing--what sourcing took it over the hump? Drmies (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confused why a primary source is not acceptable. The printing of the full Barbara Walters interview was important at the time but I have not had a chance yet to dig into the newspaper archive to see how much was written about it. Several people have improved on this entry and I am puzzled why a redirect to Dellinger would be considered preferable given the consistent confusion between this magazine and the existing Seven Days newspaper in Wikipedia. Congha2540 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Congha2540, what? We work by way of secondary sources. If we didn't, you might as well summarize every story ever published in the magazine. Your "was important at the time" needs secondary sourcing, but that seems obvious to me. And that "confusion", you brought that up a number of times, but it makes no sense to me. If there were links to the wrong article, we correct that. That's all. So I'm not convinced there's "consistent confusion", and if there is, the solution is not to write another article but to correct the erroneous links. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After seeing User:Cielquiparle's work, I'm changing to keep. Well done. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage. If anyone wasn't quite persuaded by the three articles I mentioned perviously (Working Papers for a New Society, Los Angeles Times, Herald News), I've finally found "review" type articles assessing the magazine itself. Now cited within the article are a widely syndicated review by Tom Collins of Newsday in New York, and a very large feature and review by Alan Finder of The Record in New Jersey ("Will it shake the world?" Part 1 and Part 2, "A magazine of the Left"). Cielquiparle (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2022 (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.