Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pick Me Up Magazine (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. Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pick Me Up Magazine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not asserted. There are dozens of this type of magazine on the market and there is no apparent reason why this stands out from them.  Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been previously speedied, in which case no record will exist unless an admin undeletes the original. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nn magazine, already speedied once as an advert Mayalld 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable magazine...feels a bit 'advertisish' to me. --Son 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BIG Question Where is the first nom?&mdash;ScouterSig 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See later note added above -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article doesn't really say anything about what makes it different than other magazines, other than being cheap. Chrisjtb, if you want the article to not be deleted, you should fix it. Please don't create an article and expect others to accept it when it is sub-standard, or to fix it when you probably know more about it than us. I'm willing to keep a good article about this mag, not this article as it stands. &mdash;ScouterSig 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment about notability carries no weight. There are thousands of celebrieties, tennis players, non descript Tv personalities on Wikipedia, who are totally unnotable. Notability whatever that means is no criteria for selection. Sharing knowledge on a past time that hundreds of thousands of women enjoy is.

The article is written in a neutral fashion and it is factually correct. It therfore sheds light on an area that previously had little light. Chrisjtb 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst you may believe that notability should not be a criteria, it is a criteria (see WP:N) the fact that other non-notable articles remain is no reason to add another. Mayalld 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case where is the consistency? Either teh other non notable artcles need to be deleted or thsi one accepted!. Chrisjtb 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an old argument, and no more valid now than on every previous occasion its been trotted out. If a policeman stops you for speeding, do you demand that you should be let off, because other people haven't been stopped? The argument that you put forward implies that you believe that this article should be deleted only when every other nn article in wikipedia is deleted. Why do you imagine that this article should be saved until last? Don't you think that other people will demand just the same for their favorite vanity piece? In short, it is an argument that is designed to make it impossible to ever weed out a single vanity article. This article stands or falls on its own notability. Mayalld 14:50, 4 December 2007 (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.

Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)