Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standpoint (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. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standpoint (magazine)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably-notable periodical, astroturfed by rich donors to (per the editor) fund "culture wars". There are many grandiose claims, but a WP:BEFORE shows very little RS coverage of Standpoint. The four sources in the article are what there appears to be: a launch puff-piece in RFERL, a diary piece on a new editor in the Evening Standard, a reaction to launch publicity in the Independent, a story on funding in FT. The article, and the sources available, fail to show that Standpoint meets any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL. If we look at the magazine as an organisation, the only thing that isn't launch publicity or a fundraising round is the Standard note; this fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. It looks like you can't buy notability. I'm willing to be shown wrong on this, but it would need to be shown, with RS coverage that demonstrates meeting the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:CORPDEPTH, which the current, proffered and WP:BEFORE sources fail to. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deprodded the article moments ago. This is a conservative magazine. The magazine has existed and published since 2008. Here is an example of the type of conservative writer that have. can you see whow some would want to sensor such a writer? They take donations from people like Jeremy Hosking - who is a conservative. We can find many articles written about them. here is 1 Perhaps the relevant guideline is WP:WEBCRIT which says The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. This is a strong keep. Lightburst (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not really aware of the notability of this publication, or that of The Critic – which the nominator has also listed at AfD. I have added some sources to this article, but I don't know if this fully indicates notability in and of itself; in the past, I have not been a good judge on these things, and Gerard does raise some valid issues in both discussions. So I will abstain from voting one way or another. But I do question the nomination of two right-leaning publications for AfD after a failed WP:PROD deletion by the same user, and as I have said in the Critic discussion, I am finding it hard to assume good faith for these nominations. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that in general, positing a political conspiracy theory for a deletion nomination - particularly one with detailed reasons set out - is not a well respected argument in deletion discussions - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Social Affairs Unit. Agree with nominator that the publication fails WP:NPERIODICAL and not convinced that the topic passes WP:WEBCRIT. However, I see no reason to delete the content as we could simply merge all of it into the article on the Social Affairs Unit and include it as a subsection on that page.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two keeps are not convincing: notability is not inherited; and claiming that something meets GNG/SIGCOV would actually require that sources which show this be provided, not a mere vague wave at the policy. Redirecting would be a valid alternative to deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I read this AFD I thought that if a piece in the communist Morning Star was the best that could be found then that was pretty thin. But on searching I almost immediately found a substantial piece in the Financial Times [1] and another in The Times [2]. There is also this in The Drum. I know that last is only a trade magazine for the marketing industry, but it has a claimed circulation orders of magnitude greater than the Morning Star. I don't think I really need to look for any more. SpinningSpark 23:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Social Affairs Unit. Agree with the nomination, but I also think it can be merged. The sources provided, even those in this AfD discussion, do not meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 05:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show coverage passing WP:GNG. If not kept then it should be merged as suggested above. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources that were located by Spinningspark above; the Times article was paywalled from me, but the Financial Times article seems to be quite significant coverage, and the Drum piece goes into a good bit of detail as well. These, plus the sources from the Evening Standard, seem like they are robustly about the publication itself (i.e. not an inheritance issue) and certainly enough to clear GNG. jp×g 08:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough significant coverage to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.