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. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RC Quarterly[edit]

Minor publication with circulation limited to alumni of a school. Does not meet the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. Eight hits on Google, of which four are from the English website of the college, one is from the Turkish website of the college, one is from Wikipedia, and one is the curriculam vitae of an alumnus. This article does not provide any more information than is in Robert College#Publications. Donald Albury 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even faintly notable - it's an alumni magazine for goodness' sake - and entirely without independent references to support any claim to notability. WMMartin 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, I think Wikipedia should have one on the the RC Quarterly. Just because there aren't enough links on the web doesn't make it right to delete an article. RC Quarterly is cited on mainstream media (in Turkey) as I have seen a lot of times. It is a new magazine and that is why there isn't much information online, but shouldn't Wikipedia be a source of information itself? Doesn't the fact that there isn't much information online about this publication make it vital to be included in the encyclopedia, where people could learn more about it? It is true that Robert College article provides the same information on RC Quarterly; however, if you have noticed that, you should have also noticed that this article is a stub. I think, this article should be kept and improved. Maestro 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally much more helpful to provide a reason why you think an article should be kept or deleted; keep in mind that AfD is not a vote. ShadowHalo 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all of the edits by Maestroka (talk · contribs) concern Robert College and related articles, such as this one. -- Donald Albury 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder why it is so important for you that I contribute to Wikipedia on issues/articles that I have substantial knowledge on. Could you cite a Wikipedia guideline for the necessity of your last comment? Or could we consider this a personal attack? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maestroka (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No evidence of any third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet the notability guidelines and is adequately covered in the college article. Maestro, I appreciate your passion, but it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia that it should not be the original source for information- see WP:NOR--Kubigula (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2007 (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.