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. (Thanks Cavarrone for your improvements). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airone[edit]

Airone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been on Wikipedia since August, 2009 with hardly any marked improvement in it. In fact, there have been just 10 edits on this article in its lifetime. A search for sources to establish notability turned up nothing that I could determine.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaMona, even accepting it is a magazine of "popular science" (actually it is probably so, but it was not for, at least, the first twenty years of its history), or even if it was notable only for its business and its commercial success, how this is supposed to hurt its notability? Your vote just smells of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and "WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE". Airone is notable for having received significant coverage by reliable sources (WP:GNG), for having been the most widely circulated scientific magazine in Italy, and yes it was also found authoritative: see the already cited pairing with National Geographic, while the book Magazines for Libraries refers to the magazine as "a stunning natural history magazine, the best of several European magazines", and the magazine La Civiltà Cattolica referred to it as a publication "of good scientific level". Furthermore, the magazine is widely cited by other scientific reliable sources; some examples, Dogs Never Lie About Love by Jeffrey Masson ("The phenomenon of wild and stray dogs is the subject of an excellent article by the Italian wolf expert, Luigi Boitani, in the Italian nature magazine Airone..."), A Naturalist's Guide to the Tropics by Marco Lambertini ("...the magazine Airone and its director, Salvatore Giannella, who, as a result of his having commissioned reportage on naturalistic themes, has several times permitted the organization of complex expeditions..."), The Rough Guide to Tuscany & Umbria by Jonathan Buckley, ‎Tim Jepson and ‎Mark Ellingham ("There are three marked circularwalks pioneered by Airone,the Italian natural history magazine..."), Tuscany and Umbria by Emma Jones ("the three marked circular walks pioneered in the 1980s by Airone, an Italian history magazine..."), Naturalised Birds of the World by Christopher Lever, Turismondo. Povertà, sviluppo e turismo responsabile by Alessandro Berruti and ‎Elisa Delvecchi, Le vie dell'arcangelo by Paola Giovetti, Sun, Sea, and Sound: Music and Tourism in the Circum-Caribbean by Timothy Rommen and Daniel T. Neely, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould, Sacred Species and Sites: Advances in Biocultural Conservation by Gloria Pungetti, Gonzalo Oviedo and Della Hooke, Galapagos: The Untamed Isles by Pete Oxford and Reneé Bish, Atlas of terrestrial mammals of the Ionian and Aegean islands by Marco Masseti... and a lot more. Cavarrone 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cavarrone The references need to attest to the notability. It may be hugely popular, but what you have presented is not supported by the references -- at least the accessible references. There is one brief one (one paragraph) that says it is a popular journal, but does not give any background. There are two that simply say that the magazine's company contributed to the creation of a TV show. The recommendation in a reference book is nice, but those books recommend thousands of publications, all from the point of view of purchase decisions for libraries. All of what you have given above needs references. An article that talks about the publication history and the impact that the journal has had would be ideal. I was hoping to find more in the Italian article, but it is marked as not having sufficient citations. A search on Google Scholar did not turn up the citations you give above - it would be nice to know where you got those. But what would be more interesting would be what they cite - are there articles that have become the key articles on a topic? Are there articles that have started a movement? Also, the Airone article is still a stub. As a suggestion, you might want to look at the Scientific American article (itself not terribly strong on references), which emphasizes facts about the history of the journal, and talks about significant scientific articles. That is more convincing than circulation numbers, especially for a science magazine. Right now, the Airone article is very weak on content. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more articles to look at for ideas for a popular science magazine: Popular_Science_(magazine), National_Wildlife, Natural_History_(magazine). As you can see, these articles emphasize the content of the magazine and its contributors, not the business or popularity aspects. I think adding more about what the magazine has contributed to science would greatly strengthen the article. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaMona, with respect you appears to have some basic WP:COMPETENCE problems here, let me clarify you some points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, "the Airone article being still a stub" (I'd say now close to start-class) does not affect its notability, what it counts is that the article was an unsourced one-line sentence and it actually lists 12 reliable sources about the topic, covering some key points of its history, and just a couple of refs are about its (large) circulation. And however WP:TOOLITTLE and is another one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Third, after I listed a bunch of references, the answer "All of what you have given above needs references" is just pointy, some sort of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "What you have presented is not supported by the references" is at best inaccurate, actually every single line of the article is supported by reliable references, including the pairing with National Geographic and the quote about being the best natural history magazine in Europe. Even if it was, please read Wikipedia:Notability#WP:NRV, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." and "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.". Fourth, "A search on Google Scholar did not turn up the citations you give above - it would be nice to know where you got those", Google Books. It could give different results based on our location, but it is where I took most of the citations. Fifth, the current state of the Scientific American article has zero to do with our topic. I could easily point you several articles about academic publications which have a worse state than this article. This one will not be the best article in WP but has most of the basic informations about the magazine, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. WP:UGLY is another one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. We don't delete articles just because they are not featured-class articles, our just if we don't like it their current form, but just if they are non notable. Summarying, AFD is not cleanup and none of your arguments is minimally relevant to Wikipedia:Notability. I agree the article could be expanded emphasizing the contents of the magazine (and some citations above, which refer to explorations and routes that the magazine pionereed, show it is possible), but there is no deadline for expansion and improvements. Cavarrone 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made practical suggestions for the improvement of the article - some of which would take less time than your postings here. I'm done, because I think improving the article is more valuable than arguing about it. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we are in a deletion discussion, suggestions for the improvement of the article are welcome and some of your are certainly noticeable but they belong to an article's talk page discussion, they could not be used as the ground for asking the deletion of an article. Cavarrone 16:49, 27 August 2014 (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.
More