Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus (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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (magazine)

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

A conspiracist crank magazine. The article is unsupported by reliable independent sources substantiating notability. A couple of comments noting the name of the editor, some seriously unrelibale sites, a primary source reference to a page promoting Miracle Mineral Solution and that's about it. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page from the Conspiracy Encyclopedia doesn't come up - anyone got the source? If that's an actual article on Nexus, it qualifies - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google books has the page: [1] Artw (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't actually show you the page. But yes, looking at surrounding pages it looks like this will be specialist encyclopedia coverage, so keep (just) - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International publication with healthy newstand presence, appears to meet GNG though more sources would of course always help, possibly some of the wilder stuff on the page could do with some tidy up. Artw (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is there any reliable source for its alleged enormous circulation? If not, I would have thought that it should be deleted

The fact it is an Aussie-based publication, which one has been able to buy in several general newsagents here in Edinburgh for a number of years, should give you a clue as to its notability.

"A conspiracist crank magazine." - That it may be, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. It is well known, available in hard copy internationally, and fairly widely read. Not liking the contents is not a basis for deletion. I don't like Nuts magazine, FHM or many so called Women's Magazines, but that doesn't mean they should go. -MacRùsgail (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is utterly stupid. It has a significant readership internationally. I am well aware it is a niche publication, and I am disturbed by the far right undercurrent in it... and I think it is a poor man's version of Fortean Times... but all that said, it is worthy of an article.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is coverage in reliable independent sources. Feel free to add some. It has none right now. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect ABC News (Australia) would be a little surprised to hear that they are not a reliable source. Artw (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, how is ABC not a "reliable source"? This magazine - however dodgy and awful it might be - is internationally distributed through fairly mainstream channels. (Ironically the very networks that they criticise!)-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage from the ABC, combined with a couple of the other sources is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per pretty much everyone above - having said that, it needs an overhaul. I will try and get on that later. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:18, 16 March 2015 (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.