Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum Planetary


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Petroleum Planetary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New magazine, no sources, no indication of any notability. Article creation too soon. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was unable to find any references whatsoever to establish notability. This would be a clear case for speedy deletion, if there were a CSD criterion that allowed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. The only things that seem to mention the magazine is the magazine's website, which is hosted via Blogspot. Being hosted by a blogging website doesn't mean that something can't be notable, but it's usually not a great sign. This also isn't necessarily a sign of non-notability, but I'm less likely to believe the claims of popularity in the article when you consider that the blog (which has been active since at least 2014) only has 11 posts as of right now. I'd take into consideration that there might be more articles on the printed magazine, but I don't really see any indication on this website that there is a printed magazine. By all accounts the site appears to be a blog or electronic magazine rather than a printed work, which runs contrary to what's published on Wikipedia. Typically most magazine websites tend to have some sort of information available on how to subscribe to the print versions. Now even all of that aside, there's really nothing out there at all about this magazine on the website, which goes against the article's claim of the magazine being one of the most popular magazines in Pakistan and the most well known one of its type. If these claims really were true, then this would be covered somewhere and I just don't see any of this coverage. I'm aware that the people who run the magazine are reading this, so my recommendations would be to work on improving the website and to be careful of claims. The above claims could be true, however the only people saying these things are you and most people tend to be skeptical when it comes to promotional claims. You also need to understand that magazines are not automatically notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and in order to show notability you must show where people other than yourselves (or anything WP:PRIMARY) is discussing the magazine in independent and reliable sources (WP:RS). This is extremely difficult to do for magazines, but especially niche magazines, as the mainstream sources typically don't cover this sort of thing and the academic sources (the ones more likely to cover these types of things) have so many things to cover that magazines and so little money and manpower (in comparison to mainstream news outlets) that they almost always fall by the wayside in favor of extremely major mainstream publications. I'd also like to caution you on your language. Wherever you go, you are representing yourself and your magazine. Things like this is unprofessional and makes both you and the magazine look bad, which can result in a loss of respect and reputation - things that any magazine, especially a fledgling one, need to survive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Clear attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new magazine. Joe Roe (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as I frankly consider this speedy material even considering the thin claims of "popular magazine", as that would not save this article by itself at all; there's no substance for actually establishing both notability and non-PR. SwisterTwister   talk  06:00, 18 September 2016 (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.