Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheen Annual Youth 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 redirect to Allama Iqbal Medical College#Publications. J04n(talk page) 19:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Annual Youth Magazine[edit]

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

Magazine appears to be non-notable, no sources found. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allama Iqbal Medical College#Publications. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, shouldn't've even gone through this process, should've been deleted a week ago. I've redirected.--Laun chba ller 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's inappropriate to redirect while the AFD is still open. Wait for the process to complete. -- Whpq (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite it clearly being unencyclopedic and containing no useful content whatsoever?--Laun chba ller 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:EDITATAFD. Turning it into a redirect short-circuits the deletion process. That this clearly does not merit a standalone article means that there likley won't be a relist, and the article will get deleted/redirected based on consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you say so, but this shouldn't've come here in the first place.--Laun chba ller 11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that the nominator thought it should be deleted, I think it should be redirected, and your official ! vote is for deletion, it appears a discussion is actually is needed. If not here, then where do you think this should have been taken? -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not here. This is an unquestionable delete (to have to wait a week to remove 13 unformatted words is just WP:BOLLOCKS in my opinion). A talk page would've been better.--Laun chba ller 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no question.Deb (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your reasoning for deletion instead of redirecting? -- Whpq (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an inappropriate page. Deb (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that doesn't explain why you don't want it redirected. -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The magazine is of far too local interest to warrant inclusion; it's only circulated amongst students! Ask me again when they issue it outside the campus.--Laun chba ller 12:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason you give explains why a standalone article is not justified, but it does not address why we should not have a redirect, especially as some information about the magazine is contained at the Allama Iqbal Medical College article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's pointless - no-one's going to be looking for it. It isn't encyclopedic or notable.--Laun chba ller 13:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a page for discussing whether an article should be deleted, and those who are in favour of deletion are not on trial here. Deb (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not "on trial here". Asking for a reason for deletion instead of redirection is a perfectly valid question to ask in this discussion. The response that this is not encyclopedic or notable addresses why a standalone article is not needed. And so far, nobody is advocating keeping the article. No-one's going to look for it presupposes what people might be interested in searching for. We do have material at the suggested redirect target and we normally redirect in those cases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this is one thing that we can presuppose. Who is going to be interested in it besides its writers and its stakeholders (other students, parents, teachers)? No-one! Drop the stick.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 10 May 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.