Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStor 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; notability on Wikipedia requires independent non-trivial third-party sources ("this number is big" is not sufficient), and none have been presented. This AfD does not prejudice against recreation with reference to such sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InfoStor magazine

InfoStor magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 21:35Z

• Delete, notability not asserted. Demiurge 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There is a difference between an article needing to be deleted and an article needing to be expanded. This article is one that needs to be expanded. Diez2 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is an orphan article, and articles are generally orphaned for a reason. I don't see anything indicating that the subject meets WP:CORP. Delete B.Wind 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Jeesh, I thought article was gonna be about something boring like cupboards or something. Then I find it's about data storage which is 10 times worse!! Argh! NN & possibly self promoting. Spawn Man 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• KeepIt's a notable newsletter in its industry.DGG 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added some info to the article. It has 39,000 subscribers, which is high for a relatively specialized industry magazine of this sort. It is reachable by at least 3 different online newsletter services. There are about 120,000 links in Google to articles or product reviews published there. It has been published continuously since 1997, rather long for such a publication. I would be a little absurd for a technically-oriented encyclopedia like WP not to carry it, because some of those voting thought it was about furniture. As now revised it is not self-promoting. There's a difference between commercial spam , and real notable commercial products. DGG 07:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Delete. No assertions of notability whatsoever. Not even one reliable, third-party source. -- Satori Son 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) While I strongly disagree with DGG's assertion that Wikipedia is a "technically-oriented encyclopedia", this article does now have a minimum assertion of notability. It still needs better third-party references, but it looks like they do exist as well. -- Satori Son 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — There are no assertions of notability, and there isn't even a statistic of how many readers read this magazine. "More can be found at website name" smacks of advertising as well. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep 39,000 subscribers qualifies as notable in my opinion. Needs citation. Scienter 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A small town has 39,000 readers. Now a magazine in my country has over 1 mill readers, yet on here even that would seem as NN... As Kungming said, it smacks of advertising... Spawn Man 08:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.