Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alarm (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.  Sandstein  09:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Alarm (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The 2007 AfD was closed as keep with people saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and "many Google hits". I hope we have progressed beyond such baseless assertions, and I do not see how this minor magazine meets Notability (media) or GNG. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see support for the only fact with an WP:IC from a WP:RS at the source. I see no evidence of notability although the magazine appears to be an RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator further comment. I do wonder if there is a list of magazines or such this could be merged to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep See below; Original comment: here's a listing in 2014 Writer's Market. I think it would be useful for use in citations, even as a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't access this book through GB myself, so I cannot comment on the source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's odd. But it's really only a placement, so not quite an independent source. But in this case, the article is not being used as WP:PROMO, and is probably useful for citations, as I mentioned. So I'd say WP:IAR and keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as they are in fact not even any actual sensible claims of significance considering it's not substantial at all; it actually focuses closely what there is to say about the magazine, but none of amounts to actual notability; simply an apparent "name-calling" by a magazine is certainly not enough by itself. SwisterTwister   talk  04:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete on second thoughts. The source I listed is nothing more than an advert by the company, and I cannot find anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2016 (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.