Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacEdition (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacEdition[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WEB by having only one reference that does not even include the phrase MacEdition. Google turns up exactly nothing related to the subject. Was previously nominated and kept in 2006, and hasn't been touched since. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:V. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is verifiable as it seems to be mentioned here and here, but there is a lot of unreferenced claims about how it was a "respected web resource" among other information. There are no sources supporting the online publication's notability., and is at odds with WP:WEB. Also, the first deletion discussion was laughably bad, most of the argument for a keep refer back to an argument that "it does not appear too spammy!" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The previous AfD is downright embarrassing but then again, I have no idea what WP:N looked like at that time. As for the article, I can find no sources that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:WEB. I would usually hesitate to !vote delete for a news published of any sort given how hard it can be to find coverage of the source and not by the source but this case seems very clear. OlYeller^Talktome 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the record, WP:N looked like this on November 30th, 2006, the date the last nomination occurred. The page is less comprehensive, but it still includes statements about notability such as the following:

it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works.

Oh well, guess these statements were largely looked over in the last nomination. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was a massive case of WP:ILIKEIT. Almost everyone seems to think that whatever geek forum is HOT NOW has some long term notability; it usually doesn't. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2011 (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.