Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodworking for Women

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

On a straight vote count, I get 3 clear "delete" to 2 clear "keep" votes. Tjc made a conditional vote about clean-up but it's a hard call to say whether that condition was adequately met. Smithfarm's subsequent comment also casts doubt on his/her final intent. I am going to have to call this one as no concensus which defaults to keep for now. If not expanded past the current sub-stub stage, it may be appropriate to merge this article into another larger article (though no one has yet suggested an appropriate target) or eventually renominated. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Woodworking for Women
Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is a professional and legitimate magazine that has no been around for a year. (web page)  I agree that the article should be rewritten to be less of an advertisement. --Fuzzball! 06:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten within a certain time (one week? two weeks?). As it is, it is just an ad. --Smithfarm
 * Keep Only if wikified and less of an advertisementTjc 09:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote. Can anyone tell us the size of the circulation? Shimmin 12:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Update Rewritten to be less of an advertisement --Fuzzball! 17:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, presumably notable in the crowded field of women's woodworking magazines. Kappa 21:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are plenty of craft magazines and there's nothing much special about most of them. Radiant_* 12:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the appropriate category for this article would be, to coin a word, craftcruft . Radiant_* 12:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Couldn't one say the same thing about a lot of songs that are listed within Wikipedia? Fish Heads comes to mind... but I don't think we should go weeding out most of the listed songs because we don't feel that they are special enough.  I think the question is more notability, which in this case would be determined more by how long they've been around and how large a subscriber base they have.  I can't find info on subscriber base but I think the fact that the magazine has been around for over a year without signs of dying has to indicate that is has, at least some, notability.  (None of this was meant as a personal attack and I hope you don't see it as such Radiant.  I just wanted to carry on a friendly debate.)  --Fuzzball! 04:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to friendly debate. I'm simply not convinced that this magazine is notable (considering that my local bookstore carries over a thousand magazines). There's also a recent tendency around here of creating new magazines that disappear (go bankrupt) after a couple of months. It may be useful to set up some guideline for magazines (and related publications such as newspapers) (which should probably cover 1) how long it has existed, and 2) circulation size). Radiant_* 11:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion, established paper magazines are inherently Wikipedic. They may not be notable enough for a paper encyclopedia, but Wikipedia should take them, as long as the articles aren't written like adverts. --Smithfarm
 * This appears to be one of thousands of magazines serving niche markets. There is no evidence presented that this magazine is at all significant even within their niche.  Evidence to the contrary:  They have only been around since Jan 2004.  They have only published six issues so far.  Their associated website scores 1,083,686 (substantially improved in the past few days, but I'm guessing that most of that improvement is based on investigations by participants of this very discussion thread).  No evidence presented about their subscription rates, impact on the market, etc.  Delete unless further evidence can be presented.  Rossami (talk) 03:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.