Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postscripts

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. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscripts

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

Non-notable magazine; only references are from the publisher. Appears to be part of a long-running, albeit informal, campaign to promote this press and its owner Deb (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the list of authors and having published an award winner they seem sufficiently weighty to justify an article - needs better 3rd party refs though. Artw (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've published multiple award winners, in fact. Article needs bringing up to date. Artw (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with multiple awards and refs for those awards. Artw (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to hand it to you, you've found more than I could. Deb (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've actually picked kind of an awful title to Google for. SF Encyclopedia helped a lot with pointing me where to look though. Artw (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability, which is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:INHERITED is only an essay and, as it indicates, it is not necessarily applicable to publications such as magazines. We do, for example, accept that books can inherit notability from their authors and vice versa. James500 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's relevant. As it's effectively in book format in it's latest incarnation I'd say WP:NBOOKS applies, and the series would be notable due to multiple awards. Even if it's considered as a magazine I think they would swing it. Artw (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award-winning publication. Passes WP:NBOOKS. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 2 of NBOOKS. James500 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb and Randykitty, thoughts on this WP:NBOOKS#2 rationale? czar ⨹ 22:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the article, now that Artw has supplied appropriate references. Deb (talk) 08:47, 25 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.