Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrets 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. Non-notable magazine. Looks like the magazine WikiProject won't link it. See Wikipedia:MAGAZINE#Notability -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was a notable magazine in its field, and one that survives in an online format. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But not notablie enough for WP. See Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you read that again: "... are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets'". Are you suggesting that ferret owners are a trivial niche market? Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you're wrong, but hopefully saner minds will prevail here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Wrong", "Saner minds". Very subjective... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As is your nomination, and assumption of what you believe to be "a trivial niche market". But let's see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that my nomination and my opinion that the ferret owners market is trivial is subjective stance. That is the purpose of AfD's. To come to a consensus using collective opinions (which are of course subjective).-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not presume to patronise me any further. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And can you please assume good faith and do not make any more personal attacks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I regard the AGF argument much as the Godwin argument; the first one to mention it loses. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  An I regard the first person making an ad hominem attack to have lost the argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you make one more personal comment of this nature then I will initiate an AN/I report. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Who started it? And who is now making threats? I don't take kindly to cyber-SLAPPs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys even remember why you're belly-bouncing each other at this point? Carrite (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a ton of coverage out there, but mainstream media sources tend to bring it up when they do ferret-related stories [1][2][3][4]. I think that's a decent indication of notability for a niche publication. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the obvious policy, '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail,'

For Fox News to ring Ferrets Magazine when they need a comment on a ferret story is not coverage of Ferrets Magazine by Fox, even if they credit the byline. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My subjective opinion is that ferret owners are a niche market but not a trivial market. There is no need for editors to bicker about such matters - please present your best case and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on the ferret hobby. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a significant publication in its field. In 2001, NPR even ran a feature about the battle for ferret supremacy between Modern Ferret and Ferrets Magazine.[5] To the extent this nomination is based on some preconception that ferrets are "trivial": well, it may not be true (as David Brooks asserted), that "more people own ferrets than watch Fox News"[6] but as of 2007 the American Veterinary Medical Association said that more than 500,000 American households owned more than 1,000,000 ferrets.[7]--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While my chicken-owning neighbours would be aghast if I decided to keep ferrets, were I to choose to do so, I would certainly refer to Ferrets Magazine to help me in my choice. It's a notable landmark in the ferret-keeping world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cullen is on target, as usual. I also note that there is a Modern Ferret magazine, so the "ferret culture" is probably bigger than the nominator imagines. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a notable ferret culture doesn't imply that this individual magazine is thus notable, let alone that this negligible article is demonstrating that this magazine was notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ferrets are common pets. So ferrets are notable, and there's clearly a niche for ferret magazines and even notable ferret magazines. However is this a notable magazine? I'm not seeing that. It seemed to be a short-lived failed magazine on paper and it certainly wouldn't pass WP:WEB. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WEB is irrelevant, as this an article about the published magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an article that fails to show notability as a paper magazine. Nor does it get a second chance as an online one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Huff and puff as much as you like, but WP:WEB is irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it's an essay, perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) would be more relevant. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per being notable as suggested by sources already noted by Mark Arsten and other users above. As penance, nominator is charged with creating an article on Modern Ferrett,[8][9][10][11] which we clearly need.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:22, 27 February 2012 (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.