Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OF NOTE 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 delete. Per the detailed analysis of the sources by Jmcgnh Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OF NOTE magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a relatively minor magazine. The references are mainly to the things that it writes about, and therefore do not show `notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've gone through and updated the references, cleaned up the language so that it doesn't sound promotional and removed duplicate text that was mirroring the language from the website. This article is helpful for the Guyanese diaspora and those interested in the work of Ali. Of Note and Ms. Ali are well know in the Caribbean community. ScottinGeorgia (talk • contribs) 1:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. this review of OF NOTE is useful. The Economist article doesn't seem to be useful. This item from a "reported blog" (hence, I think, a reliable source) at least talks about an issue of the magazine. This is about a radio show's discussion of the content in a particular issue of OF NOTE. An article from Images and Voices of Hope discusses another issue of OF NOTE, although the article is by an editor at OF NOTE. I think the references that explicitly talk about OF NOTE add up to enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The first reference does not mention OF NOTE at all. I have not read all of the rest of them, but the ones that seemed most likely turn out to be just brief mentions of OF NOTE on the way to talking about the subject of interest that OF NOTE may also have written about. It's hard to make out the notability of the website itself amongst the notable subjects that it takes on and therefore gets mentioned for. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I didn't feel quite right about my stance, but I've now done the analysis of references to show why I don't think we have suitable notability references and posted that to the talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Insufficient significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I've reviewed Jmcgnh's analysis of the article's sources at Talk:OF NOTE magazine and I agree with his assessment. — Newslinger talk 03:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:20, 30 July 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.