Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SID 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SID Magazine[edit]

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

New magazine, article creation premature. No independent sources beyond press releases and some in-passing mentions on (themselves also non-notable) blogs. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I did a search and there just isn't any in-depth coverage in any independent and reliable sources. The ones given on the article aren't considered to be RS per Wikipedia and even then, the mention of this magazine in those sources is rather brief or looks to be purely a press release. The most I could find were one-off mentions that the magazine was interviewing someone, but nothing that was actually about the magazine itself. Notability is not inherited by interviewing notable people or any other association with notable groups or individuals. This really is just a clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2012 (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.