Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American (magazine)

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. John254 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The American (magazine)

The American (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • This has had a notability prod on it since February. One editor updated it by adding two seemingly notable contributors, but I don't see how the publication itself is notable. It is a magazine founded only last year and produced six times a year by a conservative think tank. I can find no references to the magazine itself, or even to any influential stories or pieces it has written. Five months of a prod for notability seems long enough. Perhaps it would be better suited for the American Enterprise Institute's article. Delete or Move to American Enterprise Institute article. --David Shankbone 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Successor to the notable The American Enterprise, and edited by the notable James Glassman. Circulation of 45,000, far more than other magazines that were kept by consensus in AfD nominations (e.g., Law Practice Magazine). National press coverage when the magazine was initiated. (COI disclosure: I've written multiple times for the publication, and know many of its employees.) THF 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not really pertinent to this discussion that Law Practice Magazine or any other have higher or lower circulation numbers, which is not the threshold. Notability is. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --David Shankbone 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, circulation figures are regularly cited in determining the notability of magazines, including the AFD for the considerably less Law Practice Magazine. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and is this paid circulation that has been quoted? Is there a link to circulation numbers? Seems like there would be somewhere. I can barely find mention of this publication on Google searches. --David Shankbone 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a speedy delete, so no needs for speedy keeps. The article is written rather shoddily (with every sentence starting with "The..."), and I don't see how the notability has been established with the additional sources, none of which are independently verifiable. Is 45,000 paid circulation? Is there a link to that circulation number that can be provided? Why is it that all of the articles that were added neither have links to them, and all have the same November 27, 2007 date? Lastly, how do these additional sources show that it should not instead be moved to the American Enterprise Institute's article, with its own section? --David Shankbone 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a speedy delete to call for a speedy keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the point for a speedy keep when it's not a speedy delete, but an AfD process? --David Shankbone 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It notifies administrators that this is a waste-of-time nomination, and there are grounds for quickly closing it. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've supplied more than enough reasons for why this is not a waste-of-time, none of which are answered, and perhaps the magazine is noteworthy; no evidence has been presented of that yet. --David Shankbone 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is smacking of WP:POINT. The article is written shoddily because you AFD'd a plainly notable magazine in retaliation for my voting against an article you wanted to keep, and I rushed to insert sources before someone with a quick trigger-finger deleted it. November 27 is a Monday, and most weekly magazines publish on Mondays, and the Chicago Tribune prints its magazine column on Mondays, so all four sources are on Monday and three are on the Monday after the first issue came out. If you're going to violate AGF and accuse an editor of faking sources, do it to my face, instead of this insinuation. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ted, assume good faith and keep a cool head, this isn't personal. And this isn't a speedy delete, but a five day process (per the AfD guidelines). I AfD'ed an article that has had a prod on it for five months, that I can barely find on Google, and seems to fit better under the think tank's article. Not one of the follow-up questions has been answered, and I'm sorry, but I don't see this is a "plainly notable magazine" and it's certainly hard to find on Google searches, using a variety of methods. --David Shankbone 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The article did not have a prod on it, it had a notability tag that was placed on the mistitled orphan The American magazine that never had a stub tag, so nobody ever saw the article. This article has only existed for eight hours, and you placed an AFD on it immediately. Also, please don't update your comments (such as your initial nomination) after people have responded to them without clearly indicating the edits or the update time. THF 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I made no substantive change to my initial nomination. This article has existed since February, and it had a notability prod on it since February, which flagged it as needed additional sources (regardless of stub status). There is no "starting time" accorded articles that allow them to prove notability, regardless. Put the work in and prove me wrong, instead of arguing about a very legitimate process that has been undertaken. Instead of discussing procedure here out of some misdirected sense of victimization, why don't you just prove the magazine's notability? --David Shankbone 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, you're the only one who is tendentiously arguing lack of notability, so I don't feel the need to aim for your moving target. If editors who aren't violating WP:POINT have legitimate questions, perhaps we can discuss those. The record will reflect the article was created less than seven hours ago. The record will also reflect that an article with a prod on it for five days gets speedy-deleted. THF 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, this AfD has been active for an hour and a half. There is a detailed history of this article's nascence as The American magazine; yes, you created The American (magazine) eight hours ago. I will chalk your impassioned debate and refusal to answer questions about it up to the fact that you 1. write for the magazine; and 2. work for the think tank that publishes it. --David Shankbone 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This US News & World Report blog post was listed as one of the references to show notability, but it only shows that the magazine replaced the AEI's (quoting) "old political rag". I don't think minor blurbs that simply announce the launch of a publication really show notability. Again, I think this may be more appropriate under the AEI's article. --David Shankbone 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Who cares what a blog post says? The article doesn't cite the blog post, it cites a November 27 article in USNWR that included an interview with Glassman about his goals for the magazine. That there are also over 2000 blog posts about the magazine and its website shows additional notability. THF 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It cites the "Washington Whispers" column, which this is - this interview I am unable to locate it. And there are over 1,500 blog posts about the reviled Law Practice Magazine. --David Shankbone 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your link is to the Washington Whispers blog, which is not the Washington Whispers column. (Yes, the quote from Glassman was part of a longer column that included information about non-Glassman things.) In any event, the Chicago Tribune ran an 800-word story on and glowing review of the magazine, which is more than most magazines listed in Wikipedia can say. I'm not sure why you mention Law Practice Magazine, other to demonstrate that this brand-new magazine, with a notable editor-in-chief, notable writers, and a notable designer, has more blog mentions than a decades-old magazine. THF 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that Law Practice Magazine has a far smaller base of readers (it's an American Bar Association magazine about the practice of law) compared to one that writes about business and economics, it's surprising that there is little discrepency between them in terms of blog interest. That's neither here nor there. Both USNWR and Chicago Tribune archive their articles on-line. Do you have any links? --David Shankbone 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The New Republic link just seems to mention a column by an AEI guy, but the other one is a good link. --David Shankbone 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "article," which has this one relevant paragraph:
Tellingly, AEI's magazine has abandoned the Zinsmeister model and relaunched itself with a new name (The American) and a new mission ("a magazine of ideas for business leaders"). The new editor, James Glassman (who was tnr's publisher from 1981 to 1984), is best-known for co-authoring, with Hassett, the kitschy stock market-utopian tract Dow 36,000. His most recent venture was running Tech Central Station, a "think tank" owned by a lobbying firm whose clients would find their views taken up in purportedly independent op-eds written by Glassman and his minions. (This arrangement, also innovative and also not entirely ethical, was aptly dubbed "journolobbying" by Nicholas Confessore in a 2003 Washington Monthly expose.) Mirroring the change in leadership, The American now seems less dewy-eyed about the virtues of democracy and far more dewy-eyed about the virtues of the bottom line. Out is the conservatism of Paul Wolfowitz. In is the conservatism of Montgomery Burns.
Amusing criticism, at least. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Change to Keep. It looks like this subject is more than an AEI party organ to me. See especially the New York Sun article above. I think the nominator may have failed to find sources because "The American" is a very common expression to google, but one can find some coverage by searching the title in conjunction with the editor and AEI. I recommend that nominator withdraw the nomination for a speedy keep. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Fwiw, Glassman has long taken the position that there is a market niche for a business magazine that was actually pro-business; see this 2003 piece he wrote. Of course, this can't make it into the article under WP:SYN. But this is Glassman's vision. THF 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. With the added citations, it seems to be at least as notable as Law Practice Management magazine, if not necessarily provably more influential. I would not object to withdrawal with the article in its current state. Certainly is far better than it was this morning (or five months ago). --David Shankbone 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be notable and is quite sourced although expansion can be needed a bit.--JForget 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourced and notable. Nick mallory 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even merely as replacement for the old AEI magazine is notable, no matter how off target you might think their politics are.Sposer 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on its own merits. It's not necessarily relevant to compare with magazines in other fields. Circulation figures are relevant, but within the field or in relation to the potential audience. But certainly the continuation or re-start of a notable magazine will generally be notable. DGG (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2007 (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.