Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prefix 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 for lack of reliable sources. Tikiwont (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prefix Magazine

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

No sources suggesting this passes WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep, listed by Metacritic as a reliable purveyor of music reviews ([1]), also seem to be referenced in a few places (eg: [2]), indicating that some people view them as respectable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

The magazine is only one among many Metacritic uses. It doesn't mean it's notable. For the second site, it fails WP:WEB #1 because it's reprinting Prefix Magazine's content. As WP:WEB says: "The published works must be someone else writing about the site". Spellcast (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply, Getting onto that list is no easy feat, I should know, as I've been trying to get my site on there for years. Also, people tend to not reprint material from websites and magazines if they're "not notable". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

Metacritic only reprints quotes from various publications and WP:WEB says "media reprints" don't count as substantial coverage. There's no sources that discuss the magazine in detail (and that's probably because there isn't any at this time). As it stands, it doesn't even pass WP:CSD#A7. Spellcast (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the site is notable and has many users , but the article needs to be expanded with more info .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of users doesn't mean it's notable. It doesn't seem like it can expand because of no reliable sources that discuss the site. Spellcast (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • well but some editor may expand it , anyhow lets wait and see some more comments on this topic before coming to any conclusion , i agree to the fact that there is a lack of reliable resource .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been a perma-stub for nearly 2 years because there are no reliable sources at this time. No prejudice if anyone can recreate it if it becomes notable. Spellcast (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: A non-administrator close of this debate by Skomorokh has been overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4. This debate is being relisted on the April 9, 2008 AfD log. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find. Jfire (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be covered by much in terms of reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete given the lack of reliable sources to meet verifiability Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable sources is provided to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment :o wp:web is tough. this is a site that's gets the same traffic as atrios. its reviews are quoted everywhere. wp:web is really tough. google news brings up mentions in Kansas City Star, iAfrica, Gothamist. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Site traffic means nothing without reliable sources. Atrios seems to have a multitude of reliable sources; this doesn't. I could find no detailed coverage after searching this magazine in Google or Google news. Spellcast (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 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.