Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OCEAN 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OCEAN Magazine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very hard to tell if this magazine is notable or not, a Google news search links to various magazines with ocean in the title. Most of the references are primary, the secondary ones seem minor and don't really amount to significant coverage. Polly (Parrot) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable magazine. JJL (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have wikified it. This revealed a sentence that was not visible before. I think this needs to be given a chance to develop. --Bduke (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you manage to find any better references for it from secondary sources? I'm sure there must be some. Polly (Parrot) 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, did you? I did not look. This kind of thing needs someone who knows where to look in US sources on magazines. It is not for an Australian to do. This is particular so here as there appears to be two magazines with the same name. --Bduke (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found several for a monthly magazine called Ocean, but couldn't find any for this quarterly magazine. Polly (Parrot) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional Delete, there appear to be at least three magazines called "Ocean", and none of them seem that notable to me. Delete unless sources asserting notability can be located and included in the article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete, with some regret. It's clearly verifiable, but hard to demonstrate notability. I can't find any audited circulation information (the gold standard), and don't see that they've published writing by anyone we'd consider notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I have had a good look but I can't find secondary sources that, for example, have reviewed the magazine, held it up as an authority or quoted it approvingly. Without both decent secondary sources and circulation figures it'd hard to see the notability. I should be delighted to change my view if the requisite sources are found. BlueValour (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have subscribed to this magazine since its first issue in 2004. It is excellent. Its integrity is impeccable. I've been a subscriber to OCEAN since its first issue in 2004.--Moonn (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I checked the references and they are all blog posts, so it's hard to identify their reliability. At the moment, I'd say delete, unless there are more reliable secondary sources. Dekisugi (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are websites. I've read every issue of OCEAN and it is a valuable literary magazine with a widening audience.--Summerswim (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen issues of it at my local college library. It is definitely a viable magazine.--Bellesnbeaus (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * — Bellesnbeaus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (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.