Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The POV

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. Phaedriel - 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV[edit]

Non-notable student magazine with a circulation of apparently ~350 copies, and two issues published. The pertinent Google search yields 5 results. Speedy deleted twice already. Sandstein 06:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article does not offer much evidence of the notability of its subject. I'm not even sure it asserts any. Charlie 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable magazine. Davewild 08:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable magazine. feydey 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addressing notability, The POV has been featured in two reputable publications including The Notebook, a professionally-produced alumni magazine that reaches thousands of BB&N alums. Brian McGrory, a columnist at The Boston Globe, contacted The POV requesting an interview regarding certain subjects in an interview The POV conducted with Congressman Mike Capuano. Presidential hopeful John Edwards and Bill O'Reilly have also agreed to be interviewed for the next issue of The POV. Dontexpect 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
Delete: fails to meet notability criteria. -- The Anome 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not a notable enough magazine. As an aside, I've removed the {{hangon}} tag; with this AfD open, we should let it run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a student publication would have to be really special to get an article, and if anything the article makes it painfully obvious how non-notable it is, with a claimed circulation of 458 (!!). It also says it's published "Triannually", which I hope is a typo (if not, let's hope the upcoming 2010 issue reaches 500 readers, eh?). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Regarding the above comment, Wiktionary defines "triannually" as the following: "Adverb- Thrice every year without fail OR Occuring every three years." thanks for the jab at the circulation vs. number of issues? Dontexpect 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I go to the school that publishes this magazine. In an extremely short period of time and with relatively little resources the POV has managed several impressive interviews. The print circulation number is inaccurate because the POV distributes electronic copies to make the best use of their resources. I asked the editor and he said that they recieved 400+ downloads per issue, which aren't counted in the circulation figures. Additionally if you want to decide what is a "notable" magazine then I will argue that this is one, if a little young. Is it the quality of writing? whether you yourself have heard of it? or the interview subjects? Frankly the magazine is growing, the budget is larger for next year, and there are possible plans to expand the staff accross a few schools, wikipedia would help the magazine to grow, and retaining the article would do no harm to anything.

I'm afraid to say that in discussions such as this one, these arguments are neither new nor persuasive. Please see WP:NOHARM and generally WP:V, WP:N. Sandstein 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally as wikipedia aims to be essentially the repository of all knowlege why not include this? It is certainly as significant as some of the articles that are retained without debate, and additionally is not slanderous, insignificant or irrelavent to those not immediately involved. It is significant to students at other schools interested in starting their own school's political magazines, to alumni and families, to the students, and frankly anyone trying to get a look at student political activity today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.234.24 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Most likely, no reliable source has ever published on the crocheting skills of Aunt Mildred" well the Boston Globe writes an article on POV, that is a lot more than Aunt Mildred ever got, recognition by a nationally reputable newspaper is certainly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.234.24 (talk • contribs)

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.