Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Matters

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. Sandstein 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Matters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable magazine, article has horrible sourcing, no credible assertion of notability and tone is oddly promotional Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of source found by search engine. Cabeyi (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely as LTA, see log. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Courrecx (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Courrecx is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This" is a Google query. As indicated to you at several AfDs, please actually indicate what reliable sources you find. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The only sources available seem to be press releases and content from the magazine itself, but nothing actually about it to justify an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is supported by several valid references and is a noteworthy publication. Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Have you looked at those "sources", 600? The first is an article about magazines on an obscure software products' help pages; the second is a press release announcement of a personnel change; the third and fourth are passing mentions in articles about something else entirely. There is zero, bupkiss, nada, zilch in the way of the requisite substantive coverage of the publication itself. --15:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Having a couple of notable people briefly write for a magazine does not make the magazine itself notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (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.