Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mountain Astrologer


 * 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  12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Mountain Astrologer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No RSes, and no indication of notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  18:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the review in the library journal is a reliable independent source, there are also multiple books coverage that seems reliable, passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would point out that WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A single mention in an RS and several mentions in decidedly non-RS works from inside the same walled garden do not constitute "significant" or "independent" coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, what were these "multiple books coverage"? I apparently wasn't able to find them. --tronvillain (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not finding anything resembling significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some use as a source and some incidental mentions? Sure. Significant coverage? No. I've found far more about subjects that still weren't notable enough to keep. --tronvillain (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This magazine fails WP:GNG. Literally nothing of the references (which are: a references without a link, second one is the closest to attribute to something but seems like a passing mention, primary stuff and the reference that has nothing to do with the subject) in the article is significant coverage of the subject to account to WP:SIGCOV which counts towards WP:GNG. I was not able to find anything in secondary sources. Regarding as to what Atlantic306 has said, to pass WP:GNG you need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. To be honest, I didn't get very far in my research of this.  I clicked through to the William White Library Journal reference, where I read, A thoughtful periodical many heads above those found at supermarket checkout lines....  If the best they can say about it is that it's better than The National Enquirer, that's enough for me to say it doesn't belong in wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2018 (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.