Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbiter (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbiter (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New magazine, no independent sources, no indication of any notability. Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

16/05/14
 * External sources and references added
 * Additional information as to the current & past editorial teams re-added (as it is the norm with student magazine wikipedia entries to list this)
 * Regardless of age of magazine, the page serves to make more complete the picture that wikipedia presents of student magazines in Australia, which has more dead links than active links. Deleting this page for the above reasons would be unnecessarily heavy-handed and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwill1991 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Your arguments will have more weight if they are based in policy. For notability guidelines see WP:GNG and the links therein. As for the lists of non-notable people that at some point were involved with a magazine, there's a long-standing consensus that they don't belong in encyclopedic articles, magazines have their own websites for that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that no "long standing consensus" is applied to student run magazines in the List of student newspapers in Australia entry, where many linked articles contain lists of non-notable people within their entry. Examples: Australian National University's Woroni has a dedicated section for both editorial function and recent non-notable board members, University of Sydney's Honi Soit also has a dedicated section for both editorial function and a complete list of non-notable editors since 1929 and University of Queensland's Semper Floreat also has a list of non-notable editors from this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwill1991 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not really an issue for AfD, but for cleanup. In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are over 4 million pages here and only a limited number of editors, so not all articles are up to par (yet...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing special or notable about this publication.  There are probably thousands of similar magazines which have no widespread significance and do not deserve to have a Wikipedia page. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - My own taste is towards ultra-inclusionism of publications. A new student magazine, however, seems to fall a bit short of the mark. Needs independent sourcing for verification. This may meet GNG sooner rather than later. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2014 (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.