Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualm.co.uk

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qualm.co.uk

Qualm.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete nn magazine, contributions by notables does not make a work notable per numerous DRVs, and this has not independent sources of notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The naming is incorrect for a start, the publication is simple called 'Qualm', Qualm.co.uk is it's web address. I don't think it is general wikipedia practice to name a page after the subjects web address. Neither the website nor the publication seem to be notable, however publishing notable authors can add to a publications notability. --neonwhite user page talk 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Publishing notable authors does not make a publication notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) -- what makes something notable is coverage in reliable third party sources. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Publishing notable authors can add to the notability of a publication. --neonwhite user page talk 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a policy or guideline which says that? —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete An article for something having no third-party sources is little better than an ad.--MrFishGo Fish 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, if they'd been the first to publish major works by notable poets, then I would judge them notable enough. However, there is no evidence that the pieces published have been first-run, nor that they've been "major" works. The lack of sources or external discussion is also worrying. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:16, 23 March 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.