Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Power User


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Computer Power User

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years, the magazine just doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article and was created by an employee. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that this magazine, which is distributed on-line for no cost, is notable. No credible claim of notability is made in the article itself. Content of the magazine is largely promoting new technology, hardware and software.  Web searches found no coverage by any independent reliable source (but many mentions that the magazine exists with a description of contents that all appear to have originated from press releases from the magazine's staff because the wording is so similar). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All I could find was the company website, twitter handle, etc. Not quite notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is more out there than the website and press releases. It is also quoted by other publications, some of which I would consider notable. However, it is not used widely enough as a source to consider it being influential. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2015 (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.