Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving More: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Keep'''. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992556-2,00.html Time Magazine], [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E2DD173FF935A25751C0A961958260 The New York Times], the [http://www.thestar.com/article/305282 Toronto Star], the [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1008832.cms Times of India], the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021203072_pf.html Washington Post] and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=polyamory&num=50&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=loving+more&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ldate=&as_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring= many] [http://books.google.com/books?num=50&as_epq=loving+more&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=&q=polyamory%20%22loving%20more%22&sa=N&tab=np others] consider this to be a notable subject, so how can it not be notable for Wikipedia? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992556-2,00.html Time Magazine], [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E2DD173FF935A25751C0A961958260 The New York Times], the [http://www.thestar.com/article/305282 Toronto Star], the [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1008832.cms Times of India], the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021203072_pf.html Washington Post] and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=polyamory&num=50&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=loving+more&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ldate=&as_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring= many] [http://books.google.com/books?num=50&as_epq=loving+more&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=&q=polyamory%20%22loving%20more%22&sa=N&tab=np others] consider this to be a notable subject, so how can it not be notable for Wikipedia? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Some of the history can be seen in [http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/developments-at-loving-more.html this blog entry] at "Polyamory in the Media." The magazine wasn't being published for a while but is recently being relaunched. There was a mention of Loving More on the TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in two episodes. However it is not a fictional organization! See [http://www.tvfodder.com/studio_60/archives/2007/01/studio_60_the_harriet_dinner.shtml this article] and [http://www.tvfodder.com/studio_60/archives/2007/01/studio_60_monday_part_1_fuller.shtml this one] for some background. [[User:Musqrat|Musqrat]] ([[User talk:Musqrat|talk]]) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Some of the history can be seen in [http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/developments-at-loving-more.html this blog entry] at "Polyamory in the Media." The magazine wasn't being published for a while but is recently being relaunched. There was a mention of Loving More on the TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in two episodes. However it is not a fictional organization! See [http://www.tvfodder.com/studio_60/archives/2007/01/studio_60_the_harriet_dinner.shtml this article] and [http://www.tvfodder.com/studio_60/archives/2007/01/studio_60_monday_part_1_fuller.shtml this one] for some background. [[User:Musqrat|Musqrat]] ([[User talk:Musqrat|talk]]) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. But rewrite to focus on the group rather than the magazine. The magazine is uninteresting compared to the other work the group does (media advocacy, run conferences.)[[Special:Contributions/151.200.149.157|151.200.149.157]] ([[User talk:151.200.149.157|talk]]) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:34, 3 June 2008
- Loving More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Advertisement for a non-notable magazine. Damiens.rf 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after a little checking I found quite a few articles on the magazine as shown here, [1]. Do I agree with the philosophy, No. But to each is own. And more importantly, I do think they meet the criteria for Notability. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The huge majority of those few articles on your link are not about the magazine at all. --Damiens.rf 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- And your point is? There are over 600 hits. Even with a huge majority, though in my review I did not see that, of 90% not having anything to do with either the magazine or group (who by the way go hand in hand), still leaves over 60 cites from reliable – verifiable – creditable and 3rd party sourcing. Are you saying that is not Notable? Thanks, ShoesssS Talk 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've added a link to a salon.com article, a gnews search turns up many more that look promising.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment: The article is about both a magazine and a non-profit group. In my brief search, notability is turning up for the group, but I'm not seeing notability for the magazine. I really have no clue if this means the article should be rewritten to focus more on the group than the magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Time Magazine, The New York Times, the Toronto Star, the Times of India, the Washington Post and many others consider this to be a notable subject, so how can it not be notable for Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Some of the history can be seen in this blog entry at "Polyamory in the Media." The magazine wasn't being published for a while but is recently being relaunched. There was a mention of Loving More on the TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in two episodes. However it is not a fictional organization! See this article and this one for some background. Musqrat (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. But rewrite to focus on the group rather than the magazine. The magazine is uninteresting compared to the other work the group does (media advocacy, run conferences.)151.200.149.157 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)