Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CovertAction Quarterly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CovertAction Quarterly
Minor publication, no established evidence of notability. John Nevard (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Philip Agee. He is definitely notable but I don't know that this periodical is. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant publication in the history of the CIA and modern US intelligence. Its publication and others like it led to the exposure of hundreds of CIA operatives. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/obituaries/10agee.html for more context. Gamaliel (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. That's an article about Agee. If Aldrich Ames had published a newsletter which serious sources don't consider, we'd mention it briefly in his article too. John Nevard (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is there any evidence that links the publication of CIA officer's identities to the publication of the journal itself with the precipitation of the passing of the bill? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep historically notable periodical. Google Books gives me 113 references, most of which (on first glance) appear to be references in serious works, including several of the Project Censored reports, to articles published in CAQ. bikeable (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Gamaliel and bikeable. The publication has a rather long history and is significant beyond the connection with Agee. Pigman☿ 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I can't believe I've given, for all practical purposes, WP:ILIKEIT as a reason to keep above. (facepalm) I must be tired. Pigman☿ 06:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment You didn't, by my reading. You spoke to the significance of the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. It just seemed that way to me at the time because I didn't actually give additional sources to support my opinion. (Hey, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with people who have already done research on the AfD.) Also, I was speaking from my familiarity with the publication (I've read it on occasion) so the opinion seemed (to me) based on my feelings rather than more objective and encyclopedic sources. I'm not totally dumb. I think. Pigman☿ 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. From the above it appears that sources which document notability per WP standards do exist. Instead of deleting the article it should be tagged as lacking references and an effort should be launched to procure these sources. If this isn't done, then. we should consider deleting the article. __meco (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Small doesn't mean non-notable. This was/is a lever that had effects greater than its circulation numbers alone would suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agee ceased to be a major force at CAQ at least 15 years ago. The publication has continued, and continues to be notable, independent of him. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
