Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The St Andrews Social Scientist

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The St Andrews Social Scientist[edit]

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

Un-notable online student magazine that doesn't pass notability criteria: WP:INTERNET. It has not launched yet, and the site content is 'coming May 1st.' The article has no 3rd party verifiable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable web content. Speedy tag was contested but IMO still applies: the site itself is merely a placeholder for forthcoming content, and the article gives no indication of notability. The article as written also said (today, 30 April) It's (sic) first Issue was published on May 1st 2010 and attracted a large readership, so is clearly unreliable. I42 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not even so much as a claim of notability, nor will it likely be notable when they get around to actually writing it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged this for speedy deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to delete: The original decliner needs to be slapped with a trout. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold that trout! This is not a subject I feel at all strongly about, and I am probably being unduly lenient, but when trawling through the endless trivialities and commercial promotions of Prods and Speedies it is refreshing to come across something that is clearly intended to advance human knowledge. Please note that the content is available and that it is referred to at St. Andrews Uni - guidance for postgrads. Ben Mac Dui 19:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll hold my trout. But now I don't know what to do with it. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled trout is most acceptable. Ben Mac Dui 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming student magazines are ~~rarely~~ (never?) notable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't all universities have 10-20-30 of these? Geschichte (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The magazine fails Notability which is hardly surprising because it has just been launched. No external source has written about it and the only source is the website itself. It may be that in future the magazine attracts notice and becomes a valid subject for an article. But WP should not establish notability, merely report it. TFD (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (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.