Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Union Recorder

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 redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist periodicals. Sandstein 09:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Union Recorder

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

Non-notable church newsletter. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was proded twice recently. I removed the second prod. I think this is notable, but I'm curious to see the consensus. If the consensus is weak delete and I have time, I might try to expand it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I doubt that a denominational newsletter is notable, though I am willing to be convinced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't find any scholarly sources that are about the paper, just sources that quote from the paper. So I don't, myself, see a great GNG argument here, which I would prefer. It does seem to meet WP:BOOKCRIT 3, 4, and 5. 3 because White's and to some extent Loughborough's writings in the paper are of some influence. Also, looking at some google books mentions, the paper played a role more recently in discussions within Adventism about female ordination. 4 and 5 again based in part on White's, Loughborough's, and Jaeger's writings in the journal, the study of which would entail reading the journal. I'm not an expert on Adventism, but White was a key founder (according to her wikipedia page, the Smithsonian magazine named her among the 100 Most Significant Americans) and I think the Recorder seems to be a key publication for her and thus is notable in its historic period. WP:OLDBOOK does mention taking into account a book's value as a historical source. More recently, it is a paper for the Pacific Union Conference of the church and has a very large circulation (admittedly, this is currently cited to an old link on the paper's website). Sorry I couldn't add more to the page, we'll see how the discussion goes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a periodical, so BOOK does not apply. Without sources specifically stating that the writings in the periodical are of influence, this is just NOTINHERITED. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a periodical specific guideline and I think the spirit of WP:BOOK applies. I guess it is up to community consensus and the closing admin to decide if my thoughts are valid in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, as the article itself states, the circulation numbers are artifically inflated, since every church member in the denominational region is counted as a "subscriber". Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist periodicals Clearly not independently notable enough to deserve its own page. The lack of secondary sources about the periodical is problematic. I would actually have gone for a delete, but the redirect is a compromise here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:00, 10 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.