Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Review

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 Keep as per affirmative consensus, the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator, and Michig's very helpful discovery of sources that confirm the subject meets WP:GNG requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Review[edit]

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

Article provides only third-party source which discusses the article's subject, therefore the subject likely fails the general notability guideline. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that this a sufficiently significant and longstanding publication, and a quick Google search found several sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided above by User:Michig demonstrate that this magazine meets WP:GNG. Print publications often don't receive much coverage, so the fact that this one has is also a factor of consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A spcialist magaxine with 20000 sounds notable to me. I feel sure we have articles on journals with a much smaller circulation. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:19, 22 July 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.