Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Today

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. consensus that the publication is notable.within wikipedia guidelines (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Today

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

Non Notable University Alumni newsletter. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - most definitely notable, not least because it is for one of the UK's highest profile universities. The publication also carries articles by notable authors and is featured in other publications e.g. here. A well referenced article for a magazine established over 20 years with a large circulation - most definitely a keeper. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Oxford University is not notable, just this publication - I was not able to find significant references to it by independent sources, the one you list is a references but it is only in passing - "Oxford Today" is not the subject of the piece. As for the point about "notable authors" - that is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED - it is very easy to get anyone notable to write for any newsletter given the right circumstances. Codf1977 (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, a search of Google Scholar reveals that there are many references to this publication in other publications.[1] Since the great majority of these are pay per view, you have to look at the actual search results to see the context of the usages, and some patience is required since there are also uses of the phrase "Oxford today", but the search results reveal many citations of articles from this magazine in other works. And the April 5, 2010 Guardian article mentioned by Simple Bob (and picked up by other media) is about this publication and its future, and goes into some detail about how the magazine has historically maintained independence from the administration, All of the above is inconsistent with the nominator's characterization of this publication as a "newsletter".[2][3] Clearly notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simple Bob. Plus there are plenty of independent sources to satisfy general notability. Royal broil 05:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is not a newsletter, it is a well established magazine with an ISSN, started in 1988 with a circulation of 150,000. It is widely referenced by other Wikipedia articles, not to mention published books, etc., a selection of which are in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough of the sources in the article are both independent, significant and reliable to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows 1230 results mentioning this. One that stands out is from The Guardian, which mentions that Oxford Today is "a glossy sent three times a year to about 190000 alumni around the world". A high circulations, and it mentioned throughout many news sources. Dream Focus 04:54, 10 June 2010 (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.