Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Critic (modern 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Critic (modern 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 billionaire who (per the magazine's editor, as quoted in the article) wanted "culture wars content". All coverage actually about the magazine appears to be around its launch publicity. In particular, in a WP:BEFORE it seems there has been no coverage of The Critic since the launch publicity round. This fails to meet any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL. If we look at the magazine as an organisation, the promotional tour of the press at launch is the only coverage in RSes; this fails to show either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Occasional mentions in diary sections in The Times or on a podcast are all that can be found, per the talk page. 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) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeThe proposal to delete appears to be because an individual editor thinks the circumstances of a publication's founding to be discreditable. Many newspapers and magazines have similar stories for their beginnings, but that is irrelevant. It is the current position of the publication which is important. If The Critic were a mere vanity publication, then this would be a fair objection to its inclusion, but it has grown swiftly in just two years into a mainstream publication with a circulation higher than many longstanding magazines featured, and that over the lockdown period: that is an achievement.

The last published figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK) show has a substantial circulation, of close to 20,000 (ABC Data: The Critic). Even The New Statesman has over a century climbed only to 36,000 (current figures). The Editor of the New Stateman, politically poles apart, has praised The Critic, just this month: a quotation cited on the page.

The magazine has top-level contributors, including David Starkey, Douglas Murray, Peter Hitchens and Toby Young, which is notable in itself.

Magazines rarely hit the news themselves, as their job is to report and provide commentary on current events and culture, not to be the news: if creating news were a required criterion of notability, very few newspapers or magazines could have articles. It can though be quoted as a trusted source for other publications, and this is where you will find citations. Articles and commentaries in The Critic have frequently been referenced in other periodicals, which shows its influence. In half an hour's browsing the other night I came across:

Abba returns.. in The Week, quoting Alexander Larman in The Critic;
The Times, 18 February 2020
The Times Diary in 2021
Red Box Podcast (from 00:16:10; Panel with The New Statesman, The Spectator and The Critic

Hogweard (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are the diary mentions and a podcast mentioned in the nomination. You're not showing how this addresses any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL:

The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education.
The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.

If it's as important as you claim, and you're not just arguing WP:ILIKEIT, then please show from RS coverage how it meets any of those prongs. Note that WP:NPERIODICAL has examples of how to apply these correctly. - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:WEBCRIT. This is the second conservative leaning magazine at AfD that I have come across. Not sure what to make of that. Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was thinking the same. Both have been nominated by the same editor after failing WP:PROD deletions (I know you know, but just mentioning it for those who are unaware). I will abstain as I have no strong feelings one way or another on either of these, and I don't have a good track record when it comes to judging the notability of Wikipedia articles – but I am a little concerned about the motivations here, and am finding it hard to assume good faith for this coming up at AfD. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to both of you 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]

Keep. Meets requirements of WP:N and WP:WEBCRIT. Sources used comply with WP:V. (It's a blessing that the National Review preceded the existence of Wikipedia – and I'm not even a conservative.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's for people who like their politics as extreme-right as The Spectator (if not even more extreme), but prefer a veneer of impartiality. It's definitely notable by any reasonable definition of notability for magazines, though. RomanSpa (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the criterion for notability for a magazine like this is here: [1]. Annoyingly, The Critic probably satisfies items 3 and perhaps 5 on the list. RomanSpa (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:N and WP:WEBCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPERIODICAL is an essay, but even if it were a guideline and wasn't met, this satisfies WP:GNG regardless. This can be seen via the sources in the article reviewing the periodical. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 1 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.