Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Post


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Women's Post
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nom: Page was restored as a contested speedy deletion, deleted because "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))". Nominator is neutral. – xeno talk 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep at this point. The references in the article (especially this), have significant coverage of the publication, and a Google News search returns about 15 results that mention it.  Probably enough to satisfy the general notability guideline -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Related to Sarah Thomson (politician) which is also up for Afd. RJ (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I like the references 1 and 4 which do not relate at all to the founder's political aspirations. Unless someone knows better of the circulation and readership, these numbers suggest notability.  The article is clear, concise, well-cited and neutral.  RJ (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJ. There are articles which cover the magazine specifically.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam article created by the campaign team of the editor in order to boost her mayoral candidacy, article describes a generic magazine without any explanation of its significance. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, totally agree with Guy, magazine of minimal notability. Merge any content with the CEO. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of feel the opposite way. Merge the CEO content to this article and delete her.  If she is notable as a publisher, then does not her publication have to be notable?  And even if she is not notable as a publisher, is not it posible that the publication could be notable (i.e. you probably do not know the publisher of Sports Illustrated but know of the magazine).  But if the publication is not notable, she definately is not as a publisher.  RJ (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, regardless of who started the article there are sufficient independent, verifiable and notable sources to pass muster. Article has been rewritten since it was created so if Guy's concern is NPOV that has been addressed. Guy fails to point to any specific instances of bias in the article. Be in Nepean (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just not a notable publication, if it was not created by someone with a conflict of interest it would not have been created, minor publication on no note, delete or merge with the CEO. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're speculating on whether or not it would have been created independently. With a print run of about 60,000 and increased visibility in recent months I suspect it would have been created. Speculation either way is a mug's game - a decision should be based on the article's content and its sources, not on who created it. If one judges based on the latter there's nothing to stop deletions from being based on petty vindictiveness or a desire to punish people for being egotistical (and if that were the standard we'd have no articles on politicians, celebrities or media:) We have many articles on periodicals with a much lower circulation than Women's Post. Be in Nepean (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Mention by a few reliable sources shows notability. A lack of content means the article needs expansion, not deletion. Torchiest talk/contribs 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree the article should be deleted. Is a non-significant mag with a very small circulation (basically just a small percentage of the Toronto area only) and the article seems to only exist because of her campaign. Remember, "reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". - Josette (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't forget about this. The article clearly meets the notability guideline, considering that it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The comments made above about the article being a campaign promotion would only hold water if the sources were from information directly related to the campaign. Two of them are, yes, but the others and the one I just gave are not, so the promotion argument doesn't stand. Thus, the subject of the article is notable and should be kept. Silver  seren C 03:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you found a “source”. That doesn't mean it is significant or notable enough or that there is a good enough reason for an article here. Are you saying that everything (anything?) that is mentioned in a secondary source is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia? Please say it isn't so. - Josette (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple secondary sources, the ones in the article already and this one. Multiple secondary sources is what is necessary to show notability and the information has to be non-trivial. Three of the sources are dedicated almost entirely to discussion about the magazine, which shows its notability. Silver  seren C 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point still stands. - Josette (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It meets the notability requirements. If you think those should be stricter than they currently are, then you should start a proposal over at the Village Pump to do so or on the Notability talk page. You have yet to say how the article fails the current notability guideline as it is. Silver  seren C 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made it clear enough in my 'deletion' summary. But I'll repeat it - straight from WP:GNG - "reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". (I'm sorry we don't agree.) - Josette (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2010 (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.