Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Field

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Field (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)

Non-notable Scottish magazine with little citation provided. James Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrichards12345 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The article requires some work but the subject easily fulfils WP:GNG. If Britannica notes it among Scotland's cultural institutions that's about as definitive as you get, for retention at the very least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The worst case here would be merger to the List of magazines in Scotland and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article could undoubtedly do with be improved, but Scottish Field is a well known magazine which has been published for over a century. The Britannica point raised above strikes me as fair - you would certainly struggle to find even a small newsagent in Scotland that did not stock it. That said I am surprised at the limited amount of online coverage an internet search turns up which could make improving this a bit trickier than it might appear at first glance. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fairly stymied by internet searches as well but I think a large part of the problem is that it seems to be difficult to tailor search terms that will exclude going straight to umpteen hits from the magazine's own website. I think there may be search engine tools to allow one to filter these hits out but I don't know how to go about it. Any ideas? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right Mutt Lunker, that is part of the issue with searching for it. Stumped for an obvious way round it at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: A stack of worn-out copies of Scottish Field used to be the meagre comfort available in my dentist's waiting room! As with others above, I am in mixed feelings on this AfD: trying not to fall back on my "it's notable" intuition - although that is sustained by the Britannica reference - but having difficulty finding strongly references elsewhere which might help expand the article from this stub. It has maybe been ubiquitous in the background without having the type of content to attract academic evaluation, etc. However some traces of evidence can be found pointing to the magazine serving as a venue for discussion involving the likes of Edwin Muir ([1]), Hugh MacDiarmid and Ian Hamilton Finlay (Scottish Review of Books, 2012). AllyD (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have discovered that Bud Neill was a contributor and Marion Chesney was the fashion editor. I also came across an indication that Neil Munro may have contributed but annoyingly I didn't make note of it; will try to find it again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient references appear to exist, passes GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per keepers. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2020 (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.