Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont Review of Books (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus was that the journal is notable (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Review of Books[edit]

[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)

The journal is not on its own notable. Currently, the article only has one secondary reliable source. Any notable well-sourced content about the journal can be merged with the article Claremont Institute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find lots of secondary sources, this article however is not neutral tone. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep notable intellectual journal despite the fact that it's about as popular on the left as The Nation is on the right. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. That said, the Needs More CITATIONS tag should remain in place, article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that previous nomination resulted in SPEEDY KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be developed, but revisit its status in the future; this article is short enough that it can become a merged section of the Claremont Institute if it doesn't grow bigger. Mang (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. When dealing with a periodical with this kind of impact, it's always a better idea to improve the page. IN Depth criticism of Claremont abounds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. This article is notable, but just needs to be tagged and fixed properly. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN . I especially want to thank User:Snooganssnoogans for failing to run a WP:BEFORE bringing this page to AfD. If he had done, I wold have a far more boring morning. When I spotted Claremont Review of Books on the "Politics" deletion list, I recognized it as a significant conservative book review, and argued "keep." Then Mang's provoked me to wonder whether, despite the fact that I had heard of it, it really could support a page. And so I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours making a deep dive into the unfamiliar waters of a bunch of serious intellectuals who live on an improbably Straussian island on the left coast. I don't come to Wikipedia to take deep dives into arguments that are part of the air we east coast intellectuals breath, I know what Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, and Naomi Wolfe are thinking. What I love about Wikipedia, and the reason I keep editing, is that it prods me into doing stuff like investing the time to figure out what makes a Claremonster tick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (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.