Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venture (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Venture (magazine)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reference listed is dead and the link to the website of the subject of the article is dead. It has been listed since 2007 with nothing having been done despite a clean up tag. With the dead links there does not seem to be any purpose in keeping this article Kanuk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete According to Folio Magazine, Schofield Media closed its US operations, including the Chicago branch which published Venture Magazine. Given that the article is inconsequential, and the magazine is no longer being published, I agree that there's no purpose in keeping it. HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak articles on notable topics are kept, to be improved, not deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep former magazines can be notable. This article should be kept at least as a dab. There are at least two notable Venture magazines. There is one that was founded in 1964 and folded in 1971 (NYTimes, WSJ). Another debuted famously in 1979 (NYTimes) and was sold in 1988 (WashPost).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability doesn't go away just because an organization is unfortunately defunct in the present when it had secondary source coverage in the past. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Please -- I urge the nominator to follow the advice of WP:BEFORE. We are all volunteers here.  Please don't waste the time of other volunteers by nominating articles for deletion when a web search can show you in just a few seconds that it is on a notable topic.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (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.
 * 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.