262:
itself is particularly controversial. There are certainly notable contributors. In terms of WP notability, I would say the low number of issues combined with the high profile of the contributors and the very high page count for a journal makes it more analagous to a pretty sizable anthology (book). We do not have a WP article on every anthology published. However, 718 pages by these particular contributors seems notable to me, particularly in a field where there aren't yet many publications. I don't have personal knowledge of how influential this journal was, but I would tend to assume it had an impact, and will continue to if they produce more issues. What troubles me about this AfD is that it is emerging from an edit war and content dispute. It doesn't look good when someone edit wars for a particular perspective in an article, and then nominates the article for deletion when consensus doesn't go their way. On that fact alone, I'd say this is a
294:
1538-9413, but the people writing the article neither knew or cared. Unknown publisher. Not indexed anywhere. an attempt to use WP to gain notability for an non-notable publication. A purported journal in two libraries only is not notable. Essentially vanity publishing. amazon.com will distribute anything, even self-published, if you pay them their 65%. There's no possibility that this journal is notable in any field, or some subscriptions would have actually been sold to
166:
Notability seems to be implied by the fact that many of the contributors have their own bio articles. Also, a cursory glance at the talk page and the history shows extensive edit-warring very recently, and I don't think retaliatory deletion is an acceptable means to solve content disputes (if that is
239:
is very much "the mouthpiece of 'Radical
Traditionalism'": This means that 'Radical Traditionalism' is a concept entirely restricted to the pages of this publication and has no notability whatsoever. Which became apparent as soon as its characterization came under dispute: having zero notability, it
261:
Looking over the article, it seems to me to have some outside sources. I would like to see more sourcing on the earlier sections of the article, but as these seem to largely be statements from the journal or editors themselves, I don't think sourcing statements of self-definition from the journal
293:
Pseudo-journal, 2 annual volumes, with no reliable sources for notability at all besides a local newspaper. The article is just the table of contents. Not even the minimum requirements for a journal. Looking at World Cat, its owned by two libraries only. LC and one other (the actual ISSN is
136:: this is an article on two books, published as the first two volumes of a series. Notability is not established, all independent sources we could find are three reviews in online zines or websites. This is a borderline case, and I would vote
193:
This is clearly not the case here. "the fact that many of the contributors have their own bio articles" means that we can just list the thing in the "publications" sections of the relevant articles, it is not a criterion of
298:
libraries. The relationship to "radical traditionalism" is a classic walled garden. Each one is notable in context only of each other. Might be time to look at the true notability of some of the authors. ,
191:
the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.
126:
317:
I've done some swapping around to where more of the notable figures are in the introduction now, if that helps at all. I think the journal is mainly only relevant in
340:
for the reasons stated by DGG. There are three sources cited in the article, aside from the journal itself, only one of those sources meets the requirements for a
185:
no "reliable sources" that could be cited on this topic. How are we going to write an article about something that hasn't been talked about by anyone?
281:
217:
Lots of notable people involved who have extensive
Knowledge (XXG) articles, wide distribution (amazon.com as an example) and the mouthpiece of
344:. I agree that the walled garden of "radical traditionalism" needs some examination--there might be a lot of notability problems here.
17:
99:
94:
103:
86:
275:
145:
371:
36:
266:
nomination. Combine that with the probability that the journal is notable in the field, and I'd say this is a keep. -
370:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
269:
353:
330:
310:
285:
249:
230:
218:
207:
176:
172:
157:
68:
318:
349:
326:
245:
226:
203:
153:
90:
56:
263:
168:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
341:
195:
186:
181:
this has nothing to do with "retaliation". The disputes have brought to light that there
133:
345:
322:
241:
222:
199:
149:
306:
240:
is impossible to write an npov account "citing reliable sources" (there being none).
82:
74:
50:
120:
301:
321:, which is what it largely involves so I added a bit about that.
364:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
221:. Request for deletion seems retaliatory, to be honest.
116:
112:
108:
148:(the editor) pending the establishment of notability.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
374:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
235:That's where the problem started.
24:
1:
146:Michael Moynihan (journalist)
69:06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
354:05:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
331:05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
311:10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
286:22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
250:12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
231:03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
208:12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
177:02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
158:15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
391:
367:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
219:Radical Traditionalism
167:what's happening). -
319:Germanic neopaganism
140:, or alternatively
248:
206:
156:
382:
369:
284:
280:
272:
271:Kathryn NicDhĂ na
244:
202:
152:
124:
106:
67:
64:
61:
53:
34:
390:
389:
385:
384:
383:
381:
380:
379:
378:
372:deletion review
365:
342:reliable source
278:
270:
267:
97:
81:
78:
62:
57:
51:
49:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
388:
386:
377:
376:
359:
357:
356:
334:
333:
314:
313:
288:
255:
254:
253:
252:
212:
211:
210:
131:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
387:
375:
373:
368:
362:
361:
360:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
303:
297:
292:
289:
287:
283:
277:
274:
273:
265:
260:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
238:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:Tyr (journal)
80:
79:
76:
75:Tyr (journal)
73:
71:
70:
66:
65:
60:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
366:
363:
358:
337:
300:
295:
290:
268:
258:
236:
214:
190:
182:
169:WeniWidiWiki
163:
141:
137:
132:
58:
55:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
346:--Akhilleus
323::bloodofox:
223::bloodofox:
138:weak delete
189:asks that
264:WP:POINT
198:at all.
142:redirect
127:View log
259:Comment
100:protect
95:history
338:Delete
291:Delete
104:delete
215:Keep.
196:WP:BK
187:WP:BK
164:Keep.
134:WP:BK
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
350:talk
327:talk
307:talk
296:some
246:(đł)
227:talk
204:(đł)
173:talk
154:(đł)
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
302:DGG
242:dab
237:Tyr
200:dab
183:are
150:dab
144:to
125:â (
63:man
52:Mr.
352:)
329:)
309:)
229:)
175:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
59:Z-
48:.
348:(
325:(
305:(
282:â«
279:âŠ
276:â«
225:(
171:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.