Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pidgin Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pidgin Magazine

Pidgin Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Don't see what is notable about this magazine Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for now: Give it time to develop and review it in a year. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's being still being published which is at least somewhat notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.95 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as failing the key policy WP:V. In addition there are no sources to demonstrate compliance with WP:N. We don't keep pages in the hope that they become notable; we delete and allow recreation if notability is attained in the future. TerriersFan (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable as yet. If it becomes notable in the future then a new page can be created, but a non-notable entry shouldn't be left on the off-chance that it becomes notable in a year or so. Alberon (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The magazine is not notable, although surprisingly, the "Architects I'm Sick of Your..." open letter that appeared within it might be. The only sources I could find spoke about the magazine in the context of having been the vehicle for the open letter. (The letter also has been widely reprinted). Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (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.