Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curio (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 both. If more sources can be produced, the article on CUrio can be recreated through deletion review, and this AfD closure should not bar the re-creation of the CUrio article if further evidence of notability turns up at a later date. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curio (magazine)

Curio (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No notability established by way of multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N. Delete view. Also nominated Bootleg (magazine). Bridgeplayer 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see nothing notable about this. i ^said 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major uni newspapers such as this are notable, being a breeding ground for new journalist/writing talent. This is recognised in the decision of major libraries to keep them archived. (see article discussion) 124.170.126.247 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it I think its notable. alexis+kate=? 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I moved it to CUrio by the way. The U is in caps because it is the uni's initials. alexis+kate=? 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - it is not sufficient for the creator to make generalised statements as above. What we need is to know why they are notable since being a student newspaper is not notable in itself and more is needed than simply being published. In order to establish notability what is required are reliable references that underscore such notability, and to meet WP:V, and they are absent. BlueValour 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral on Bootleg (magazine) - not clear if it still exists, no library record of it. May be another "Blitz". But I don't know anything about Ballarat U. Joestella 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep on CUrio. It's real, it is referenced in a national newspaper and the national library, and student newspapers have colourful histories that tie into Australia's cultural and journalistic story. I would like to see this article grow into something like that rather than allow a premature AfD to prevent it being recreated (which seems to have happened on Opus (magazine)). Joestella 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Bootleg (magazine). The reference indicates that it has been published but there are no WP:RSs to indicate that it has any notability . A bad failure of WP:N. TerriersFan 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete CUrio. The reference to CUrio is a passing mention. What is needed is a reliable source that comments on the magazine and there are none here. Being held in the national library conveys no notability since many national libraries have a policy of holding all publications in their country. The British Library holds copies of every book published in the UK but that doesn't confer notability. TerriersFan 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Student papers, like all things student related, have to establish a noability beyound the campus. Nuttah68 09:28, 24 August 2007 (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.