Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlanta Business 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) 19:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Business Magazine[edit]

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

I only found online directories and the article has no references. This fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources about this topic. I also can't find anything about the Atlanta International Business Association. Ironically, in some other article, this magazine might feasibly used as a reliable source. romnempire (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no real irony in this situation, Romnempire. Many publications are reliable, but not notable. Consider the journals of state and provincial historical societies. They are reliable in most situations, but reliable sources are unlikely to write about them. On the other hand, some publications can be notable but not reliable. Weekly World News is my favorite, but many British tabloids qualify as well. On a darker note, consider Der Sturmer. Notability and reliability are entirely different concepts, although they often overlap. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am surprised that it is not notable, but Cullen is right. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (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.