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 (NAC) Dr. Meh 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty Magazine

[edit]

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

Malformed AfD creation. Adding this to the AfD page. No opinion - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted nominator User:98.248.33.198 stated the following on the article's talk page: PROD contested by creator, but still no third party sources or indication of notability. No opinion on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to a serious magazine which has been in existence nearly thirty years.

The magazine is involved in a landmark hearing in the Court of Appeal which is important for journalism in the United Kingdom. A large number of people concernbed with Prince Radu will be interested in the details of the entities that he is suing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troothagon (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. It's not immediately obvious if Royalty Magazine is notable in its own right, and the self-admitted tiny circulation doesn't help ist case. Its founder, however, certainly is notable is he gets obituaries in the major newspapers, and yet somehow Bob Houston doesn't have an article. Options could include cleaning up this article, merging it into a Bob Houston article or converting it into an article about the owner, but I think there's enough for some of the stuff to stay in some form. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like this magazine was the subject of an article in the New York Times, and the lawsuit referred to in the article and the death of its editor (Houston) seem to have drawn some coverage as well. Since notability isn't supposed to be temporary, the historical circulation figures are evidence of the magazine's former significance. The article could use some cleanup. TheFeds 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Royalty Magazine[reply]

Reluctant keep - My userpage makes it clear what I think of "royalty", those excrescences upon the body of humankind; but the publication does have some notoriety, including mentions in books on the Chuck-and-Deedie era. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (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.