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 close) RMHED (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loving More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Advertisement for a non-notable magazine. Damiens.rf 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after a little checking I found quite a few articles on the magazine as shown here, [1]. Do I agree with the philosophy, No. But to each is own. And more importantly, I do think they meet the criteria for Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The huge majority of those few articles on your link are not about the magazine at all. --Damiens.rf 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? There are over 600 hits. Even with a huge majority, though in my review I did not see that, of 90% not having anything to do with either the magazine or group (who by the way go hand in hand), still leaves over 60 cites from reliable – verifiable – creditable and 3rd party sourcing. Are you saying that is not Notable? Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a link to a salon.com article, a gnews search turns up many more that look promising.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The article is about both a magazine and a non-profit group. In my brief search, notability is turning up for the group, but I'm not seeing notability for the magazine. I really have no clue if this means the article should be rewritten to focus more on the group than the magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Time Magazine, The New York Times, the Toronto Star, the Times of India, the Washington Post and many others consider this to be a notable subject, so how can it not be notable for Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the history can be seen in this blog entry at "Polyamory in the Media." The magazine wasn't being published for a while but is recently being relaunched. There was a mention of Loving More on the TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in two episodes. However it is not a fictional organization! See this article and this one for some background. Musqrat (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But rewrite to focus on the group rather than the magazine. The magazine is uninteresting compared to the other work the group does (media advocacy, run conferences.)151.200.149.157 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both the organization and its magazine have been a major element of the polyamory community. Editing would make more sense than wholesale deletion. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I copied PhilBridger's refs into the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (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.