Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief 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. I am aware that this is a very weak consensus, however by that notion I believe this wouldn't have survived a WP:PROD either and would have been deleted without any discussion anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Magazine[edit]
- Chief Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
While I cannot find any specific guidelines covering magazine notability, there is no evidence this magazine meets general notability guidelines. I find no evidence of 2nd party coverage (most of those results are about 'chief' positions after filtering out police and fire, which are more well-covered magazines). Out of the references cited in the article, two are PR blogs, one is a mention of a Chief Magazine staff member present at an event unrelated to the magazine and the 4th is about a staff member's book, which doesn't mention the article. This is not a CoI issue as I believe the creator has kept it neutral, I just don't see this meeting notability in any way Travellingcari (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources are provided. Logastellus (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 22:36, 15 February 2008 (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.