Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Magazine

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; DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I honestly consider this speedy material, I'm not finding anything which is unsurprising and it all essentially boils to there being no actual significance or substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely cited historical magazine and one of the first of its kind in Canada. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.--TM 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be of great historical interest, but needs better sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per common sense views expressed on the essay Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)#Non-contemporary periodicals. Historic significance, as evidenced (and just one example) by this periodical being referenced in the chronology of Canada list in the 2004 book The Cambridge Companion to Canadian Literature. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks to User:Namiba, Xxanthippe and 1Wiki8........................... for their very strong and wonderful support, I have nothing to add to their comments. Spem Reduxit (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• note perhaps Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ and SwisterTwister would like to review their nomination and !vote? If they agree, this AFD can be quickly closed so folks can get back to more important things. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree doesnt mean we're wrong. Lets let the AfD run its normal week long progress and also no one is forced to be here. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this AFD to remain as a prime example of your work, then so be it. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (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.