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 Userfy (for a short time). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulcrum (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)

Student-run publication with no third party reliable sources and no notability. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources and revised the article's text in line with Wiki standards. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any notability and the article's creator appears to be one of the founders of the magazine. People looking for sources be should aware that there are many other magazines called "fulcrum". Dricherby (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added categories to speficy the type of magazine. This is my first article and I thought to do something I am familiar with, could someone assist me in making this article appropriate for Wiki? Many thanks. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding notability, a quick check on any of the referenced architects' Wiki entries will show that they are amongst the best known in the world. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Something you're familiar with is good but try to avoid cases like this, where there's a conflict of interest. I agree that some of Fulcrum's contributors are highly notable but that alone doesn't establish notability of the magazine: WP:NOTINHERITED. I've not found any notability guidelines specific to magazines but, in general, notability means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Things like reviews of the magazine, discussions of it in the architectural or even general press are needed. Having articles reprinted by other publications is great for Fulcrum but doesn't establish notability of the magazine: it just shows that the reprinted article was of a high quality. If you can find sources that establish notability, then add them to the article but, aside from that, I'd recommend that you step back from editing it any further because of the conflict of interest. Dricherby (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for all the help, how can I request to have this article shifted as per Wikipedia:Userfication (i.e. moved to my sandbox?). --Jackself87 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article can't be userfied at the moment because it's under AfD but you can !vote to userfy. (Just add a line *'''userfy''' to the bottom of the discussion, give a reason and sign it. Dricherby (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a weak article but 1) it's been running for a year, 2) they have notable contributors, 3) they've been reviewed/reprinted in other professional journals. As to the conflict of interest, WP:COI does not state that an editor can't edit article with which s/he has COI. It just states that the COI should be publicly noted and that the editor should do their best to be objective. Maybe Jackself87 should look at Wikipedia:Amnesia test but I don't feel he needs to disavow from the article. Joe407 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Joe 407. --SeanMcG (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable third party sources, unable to find anything that remotely approached meeting notability standards. The notability of its contributors is not inherited, and the fact that it has been published for only a year also points toward deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 13:51, 10 June 2012 (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.