Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviaction (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Aviaction
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

magazine with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication that the article meets the criteria set forth in WP:N or WP:CORP or any of the other relevent guidelines. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a genuine magazine published in Pakistan. I have the full details regarding its address and publishers. It should be kept as it is well read. --Fast track (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, last time I checked our notability criteria was not "existence". Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I find it ironic that we require coverage from reliable sources to establish something is notable, yet some might find the actual reliable sources themselves non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is indeed ironic. You have not, however, provided any kind of rationale for your !vote. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even the lead-in of WP:NOTABLITY provides that editors employ common sense. --Oakshade (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is no evidence to suggest that this magazine is notable. Simply being published doesn't make something notable; vanity presses, anyone? Magazines and so on are not free from WP:ORG just because they themselves can (theoretically) be used as sources. Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question, is this an English language only publication? I find it plausible that there may be reliable coverage of this magazine in Urdu-language sources.  At this point I'm leaning towards a Weak Keep, if only to counter systematic bias.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete blog external link in article indicates that the magazine folded after a few issues. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the magazine only published a few issues before being shut down, WP:N has not been satisfied because it would not have received "Significant coverage" by other sources. Malinaccier (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (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.