Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOÖ Journal


 * 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. I'm sorry about this but the arguments for deletion are grounded in policy, the arguments to keep are not. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

NOÖ Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced article on literary magazine with only included authors' names used to assert notability (GNG). Article was created by single purpose account, so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose NOÖ is a very prominent journal nominated regularly for major prizes JenzAccount (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on reliance of proposed notability guidelines for periodicals Notability_(periodicals), subject meets at least some minimum threshold guidelines -- such as at least having an ISSN (1939-4802) -- but fails to demonstrate longevity or impact in its field. Being nominated for an award is not the same as winning an award. Publishing well-known writers, poets, etc, does not count toward the magazine's notability. Mtiffany71 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Publishes major writers, clearly a journal with major impact in field Vrivers (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Some mentions in blogs, but nothing in RS, so fails WP:GNG. Notability of published authors is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Jimmy Pitt   talk  19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent sources provided which would establish that this publication meets the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known journal, frequently recognized as such in the field. PortP (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's so, where are the reliable sources? Jimmy Pitt   talk  13:54, 11 October 2010 (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.