Evangelicals Now: Both sources in the article are primary sources and I can find very little elsewhere, beyond passing mentions.  It is treated at some length by this one book but the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which has questionable reliability.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Christianity ,  and United Kingdom .  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 13:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I think it is highly questionable whether a newspaper with a small readership is notable.  I am sure it is important to the community concerned, but it only suitable for an article on en.wiki if it meets the GNG, and I don't see any RS that are suitable.  It is tough to assess the notability of media as they're often not discussed in other media.  To me, this transparently isn't notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This publication has started a few debates on The Gospel Coalition 's website, but I accept that it does not achieve sufficient notability for an article here.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for this information to be preserved somewhere, e.g. as I have suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Times by transwiki to WikiChristian or Theopedia.  – Fayenatic L ondon 15:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's possible that I'm misunderstanding something but it appears that the transwiki policy you link to here is about moving pages to other language wikipedias.  And the wikis you suggest surely have nothing to do with this project nor need assistance from us.  If they haven't already used the relevant pages from en.wiki, I think it is absolutely fine to expect someone there to do their own work without assisting them to do it on non-notable en.wiki subjects.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those wikis you mention are completely unrelated to Wikipedia and, to be honest, it is not our job to provide content for them.  If they want to write article on these publications, they are free to do so but that shouldn't interrupt our processes.  Further, I think there would be issues with them directly importing material from Wikipedia since to do so would require attribution, which in turn would require keeping the history of the article (if I have interpreted that correctly).  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- a specialist periodical with a circulation of 6000 seems to me worthy of a WP article.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 2 million evangelicals in the UK (see refs here ); 6000 is not very large in that context In any case, GNG is still not met, nor are any of the criteria at WP:NMAGAZINE .  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:46, 17 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete