Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motmot Magazine

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. Tokyogirl79's salt recommendation was taken into consideration, but nobody else supported this action. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motmot Magazine[edit]

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

Article about an apparently non-notable magazine. The only available sources are press releases and social network profiles. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I can't find anything to show that this magazine is really notable. It exists, but existing does not equal out to notability. I'd actually recommend salting this article since it's related to the article for Thomas Tomczyk, an article that has been re-created and deleted 7 times already. Since that article has been re-created so many times, it stands to reason that this would potentially have the same issue (especially if the main article for Tomczyk is deleted and this becomes the main avenue to promote the guy). As it is, the article looks like it was written mostly to name drop the author and a book he's self-published through his own company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are turning up nothing beyond PR and the usual social media; no evidence that this publication has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2015 (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.