- 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. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Baffler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
promo The Banner talk 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that there are books written about this magazine.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notable magazine with significant coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g, Color Me Baffled! Thomas Frank’s Magazine Lives Again, The Baffler Puts Its Archive Online. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is assured. You can type "The Baffler" into Google and come up with results just like the one in the response above mine, including articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the MIT Press Journal, and so on, all about the article's topic. The magazine has always had a relatively small circulation compared to many of its peers, but it has also launched or featured many extremely high-profile writers. It's notable without a doubt, and the poverty of information in the article is something I intend to fix in the near future, by the way. MediaMaven3 ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Well-known less-known magazine. -- Green C 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per 24.151.10.165 & MediaMaven3. Easily passes WP:GNG.-- JayJasper ( talk) 18:04, 4 August 2014 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Baffler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
promo The Banner talk 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that there are books written about this magazine.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notable magazine with significant coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g, Color Me Baffled! Thomas Frank’s Magazine Lives Again, The Baffler Puts Its Archive Online. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is assured. You can type "The Baffler" into Google and come up with results just like the one in the response above mine, including articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the MIT Press Journal, and so on, all about the article's topic. The magazine has always had a relatively small circulation compared to many of its peers, but it has also launched or featured many extremely high-profile writers. It's notable without a doubt, and the poverty of information in the article is something I intend to fix in the near future, by the way. MediaMaven3 ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Well-known less-known magazine. -- Green C 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per 24.151.10.165 & MediaMaven3. Easily passes WP:GNG.-- JayJasper ( talk) 18:04, 4 August 2014 (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.