Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storage 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; 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] Storage Magazine
Storage Magazine, a storage magazine. Nominating this to be fair to InfoStor magazine (AfD discussion). —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 21:36Z
- Delete, notability not asserted. Demiurge 22:55, 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)
- Very Weak Keep Diez2 said it right. Yankee Rajput 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per above. JRP 02:48, 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 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't have notability criteria for publications, but it appears to be in publication since 2002 and seems to be a professional commercial endeavour, so it will probably do. Sandstein 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'll change to a Keep when it can be demonstrated that more than a handful of people subscribe to this journal. Scienter 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep They claim 20,000 on their page for advertisers, but not as well established as IS.
- 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.
