Talk:The Political Quarterly

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Untitled

Talk: The Political Quarterly.

This article is not about "a person or group of people" but about an institution, namely a 75 year old political magazine of considerable influence and significance. It was founded, edited by and contributed to by various influential political figures who have their own Wikipedia entries, including Leonard Woolf, Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini.

Afonka Bida (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC Pro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Generalist issues about policy should go to the relevant pump page - none of this is relevant to improving this article as it stands --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See PC Pro August 2008 where Dick Pountain's Idealog says:

"A couple of weeks ago I attended the annual Orwell Prize Awards Ceremony for political writing which is sponsored by The Political Quarterly, a venerable UK magazine for which I write occasional book reviews. Sure enough Wikipedia has an entry for Orwell Awards, but its link for The Political Quarterly was just a stub, so I tried to add a proper entry for the magazine. I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of this 75-year-old periodical, mentioning that early contributors included Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini. Sure enough, within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content, is only about my friends (some friends!), lacks citations or corroboration and has been put up for "express deletion". I was permitted an appeal, but it was disposed of in about two minutes and then the piece was gone."

True enough, though it came back 19 hours later. --Rumping (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I requested that the deletion be reversed and the administrator who deleted it admitted that he made a mistake. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, I appreciate your efforts.

But this doesn't fix the underling problem. Most new editors don't have a media bully pulpit to rally against the bullies and tin pot dictators. Is it any wonder that media coverage about deletionist is unanimously negative?

The page was deleted on 04:17, 25 April 2008. The administrator then "apologized". Since the administrator's apology he has deleted an additional 2585 images and pages. Maybe he is just sorry that he pushed around someone from the media?

Dick Pountain is right, life for many new editors here on Wikipedia is terrible, with veteran editors treating them terrible. travb (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's a bit too strong. The admin might have made 2,585 deletions since, but you'd need to provide evidence that they weren't justified before suggesting that this is inappropriate. Just because they made a mistake here, doesn't mean they have elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times: "At the heart of the include-exclude issue is the idea of notability, which a Wikipedia policy page defines as "worthy of notice." The problem is that deciding what counts as notable -- and who gets to decide it -- is a hopelessly slippery pursuit...if even a small number of useful articles are being deleted in the name of keeping Wikipedia clean, isn't that like allowing a few innocent men to hang in favor of a lower crime rate? "Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate"[1]

I am only mirroring the media's view. Ikip (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this policy based discussion have to do with improving *This* specific article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article's speedy deletion...

I asked the administrator who deleted this article for an explanation as to why they didn't restore the original article creator's explanation as to why this article belonged on the wikipedia. I wanted to read that explanation after reading a magazine article about the deletion. I was told they were on a wikibreak. So I made a request for its undeletion on DRV -- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 March 16#Talk:The Political Quarterly Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]