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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Herring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This magazine does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. My search on Google, Google Books, and Newspapers.com does not turn up any significant coverage of the magazine. If this WorldCat entry is accurate, it is only held by a single library, and it does not appear to be particularly influential or widely cited. There may be some sources I am missing, as this is an older periodical, so I'd like get input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 00:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In general I like the idea of broad coverage of projects. In this case, the Art & Language article includes some material on the preceding The Fox journal but not Red-Herring. That said, aside from this brief mention, I am not finding much which might justify a merge. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A magazine that publishes only two issues total is not notable. Rogermx (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Red herring as a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. Do you think someone searching for the idiom is going to capitalize the second word and put a hyphen between them? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, there's a proportion of end users who're terrible at English. Most Wikipedians are accurate with their spelling and capitalization, and in discussions, we're mostly talking to other Wikipedians: people who've self-selected as editors. But we have to consider the full spectrum of end users, bearing in mind that the fact that they're searching for a commonplace English idiom suggests that English may not be their first language.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 6 May 2021 (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.