Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagineer 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. Consensus is that the article doesn't pass our notability guidelines currently. —SpacemanSpiff 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagineer Magazine

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

Non-notable per WP:NMEDIA, only 2 issues published so far, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN (GregJackP (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Mostly on account of the Chomsky piece, which Chomsky then placed on-line at his own site. This would suggest that he thinks they're of some note, and I'm not going to argue. "2 issues" is sufficient to deflect WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now. Although the article on Noam Chomsky has been translated in German here, the notability of a magazine cannot rest on a single article. Not yet getting any hits on Google News or Google Scholar. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Seems to be a semi-serious publication thrown together by three guys, two of whom now live in Europe and contribute little to it. It claims to be a quarterly but has not actually published that often (the two actual issues are Summer 2009 and Winter 2010). More than half of the references given are to the publication's own website. As for Chomsky, he is a big name (their only big name) but he gives out interviews left and right, several a month, as can be seen here. Most importantly, there appears to be zero recognition of the publication by any outside reliable sources. Incidentally, we just finished deleting as non-notable the puff-piece articles that had been written about the three editors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be notable one day, might never produce another issue. Hard to tell and we dont have a crystal ball. Today, it doesn't meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (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.