Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marin 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. Secret ^account 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Magazine

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

fails WP:GNG. Subject is a non notable local publication. No indication it has received any recognition via major awards nor news coverage or other scholarly interest. It is named a lot in authors bios as part of their previous contributions, but there is no indication that it is from some cache' the publication itself has rather than an inherited cache' from the county where it is located- and none of those mentions contain substantive info about the magazine. (the previous AfD was speedy close because a likely COI editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia had not expressed a valid rationale) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no guidelines for the notability of magazines as yet, but this article does fail WP:GNG as per nom. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the administrator who closed the first AFD, my decision was predicated on the fact that the nominating editor based his rationale on the assertion of personal ownership rights over the article, in particular his inability to get primary-sourced promotional content inserted into the article unchecked by any of Wikipedia's actual content standards — which is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Despite my decision the first time around, I agree that the article as written is not actually claiming or sourcing enough notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia — and if people are looking for additional sourcing and failing to find any, then there's no real prospect of it becoming keepable either. Magazines actually are covered by WP:NMEDIA and WP:NMAG — but this magazine isn't passing either of them. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (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.