Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demos Journal

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demos Journal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Non-notable based on sourcing, combined with 2. WP:NOT clear promo with WP:SPA creator. Widefox; talk 23:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Non-notable based on sourcing" implies that the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE before calling for deletion, since a proper evaluation of notability is based on a search for sources at large, not only by examining the ones already provided in the article. Also, I don't find any of the language to be promotional, and, before recent rules went into effect, there was nothing unusual about people creating an account for the first time in order to create an article, and nothing wrong with that, especially given that such a person could have been editing anonymously for years. Largoplazo (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. This was prodded and had two prod2s User:Randykitty User:Jack Frost User:Largoplazo which speaks for itself (the other editors I can ping are SPA creator, and SPA IPs (plus one other IP). This to me looks like clear promotionalism, which I refrained tagging as it's not overtly an advert, although just existing in WP is enough, and per WP:BOGOF I wish to counter this systemic bias. Notability isn't the only reason we can delete something, NOT advertising is also (nom reason 2), and we're WP:NOTBURO. The more finite resource we put into countering promotionalism, the less we get to work on non-promotionalism. I volunteer on the latter, as it improves this place. Widefox; talk 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The current stub is neutral enough for my taste, I don't see much (if any) promotionalism, nor do I mind that this was created by a SPA editor. However, neither do I see much evidence of notability and a Google search does not render any independent reliable sources either. --Randykitty (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.