Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Townsend Letter


 * 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. DES (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Townsend Letter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unreferenced, orphan article. THF 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion or citation of notability. -Markeer 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is terrible, but the subject seems notable. Google has 500,000 hits, so we have something to work with. Yechiel Man  16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per YechielMan. JJL 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's basically a print journal, with about one-third of the articles available online free. From Ulrich's Periodicals Directory-- 1/not indexed anywhere except in Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, which is mainly UK oriented but is the most complete of the relevant indexes   2/ the publisher is unknown otherwise--only title--it's a private operation run by the editor, Dr. Jonathan Collin  3/ a consumer magazine, claiming only 6000 paid subscriptions.  However, though not available through Proquest & Wilson, it is through Ebsco and Gale, and it has been going under slightly varying titles since 1983, which is a long time in this part of publishing.  Ulrich's will serve as a source. Being in Ulrich's doesn't show notability, since they put in everything they can find that is actually being published more or less regularly, but it does document the basics.  I think being in 2 of the 4 major online services is notability for a consumer magazine. DGG 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. It is a stub that can be improved with scholar, news and book results. John Vandenberg 05:24, 14 June 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.