- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Progetto Babele (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)
Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Created by WP:SPA and probably by the founder of the publication, judging by creator's username. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Marco Roberto Capelli. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand. Why should it be deleted? 20 issues plus several special issue in 10 years, About 2000 pages. Interviews to writer such as Arturo Perez Reverte, Federico Moccia, Corrado Augias. And many articles and short stories published by authors that now are professionals. All what is written in the page is true and related to info available on the net or in several bibliographies of published books. Moreover, it is a no profit company and beside the online content, the magazine was printed on paper and the books are only sold on paper (no ebooks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.117.178 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see the journal is used as a reference in 13 articles in the Italian Wikipedia, so I assume it has some substantial importance. The uses there seem significant--its used for biographies and bibliographies of contemporary writers. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 21 September 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, j⚛e deckertalk 18:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with editor DGG here, SuperEva appears to be a reliable secondary source, and the publication Progetto Babele is accepted in the field. It is also cited in academic journals such as Anàlisi: quaderns de comunicació i cultura. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 29 September 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.