Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technologist (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   no consensus. I see a plausible argument here that this article could gain from being renamed Eurotech Universities. Shii (tock) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Technologist (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason: "New magazine, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation vastly premature". Article dePRODded with reason "Article about a magazine that will have some importance and about the Eurotech Universities alliance, which deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia". "Will have some importance" violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. "Deserve to be mentioned": being deserving is not a criterion for notability. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. Yo should not base your request on quotations from me but on the actual importance of the magazine and academic network. It is wrong that the article has not independent sources, although it has only two of them so far. This article is also about a university network that meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability as well. However, upon request, the article could be renamed "Eurotech Universities". Chaudeau (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
 * At this point, I don't see any evidence for notability of the consortium either. Obviously, the individual universities themselves are notable, but that doesn't mean that any organization they belong to automatically becomes notable, too (WP:NOTINHERITED). Apart from that, I don't see any in-depth coverage of the magazine in independent sources (of course, it's name makes searching for sources not easier). Coverage is what is needed to meet WP:GNG, not perceived importance, whether actual or perceived. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. I believe it is in WP's interest to have a very, very relaxed approach towards the notability of articles dealing with publications apt to be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. That means both academic journals and quasi-journals like this. When a journal is cited, a truly excellent encyclopedia should have the capacity to give some quick minimal explanation of that source for a reader seeking to verify information... This is a really good example of where WP:IAR (use common sense rather than rigidly embracing rules) should be leaned upon... Carrite (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Meaning we are going to use our personal judgment rather than GNG or NMAGAZINES. Unless you also want to include predatory journals... --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on Randykitty, this has nothing to do with predatory journals. Etechdin (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. If we want to keep trash like predatory journals out, we need criteria. Also, many publications appear and shortly thereafter disappear without leaving much if any trace at all. Do we really want articles on those things? Of course not. I'm not saying we should apply GNG to the letter on this kind of publications (although you should realize that there are many editors here who feel that we should do exactly that and not make any exception), but we need a minimal standard. This magazine is simply to young to even make a minimal standard. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - A journal that is published in three languages and 20 countries is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? I have a large family in 25 countries speaking 6 different languages. Does this mean that our family magazine is now notable, too? Can you tell me what policy this !vote is based on? --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (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.