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. "Is likely to be notable" is a weak argument, and the second "keep" opinion does not even make an argument.  Sandstein  06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Today[edit]

Adventist Today (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 article does not meet notability requirements nor does the article itself actually inform the users about the adventist today magazine Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the concern is notability; and the topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia; can this be handled with discussion on the talk page of the article, and Template:RfC if necessary?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this article does not meet notability requirements, what is the next step?...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i don’t see why not however the talk page is not very active so but i will put the template up. Jonnymoon96 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i will probably add the speedy delete template since the discussion on this talk page is not happining very much--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonnymoon96: You cannot tag a page for speedy deletion unless it unquestionably meets one of the speedy deletion criteria. Lack of discussion at WP:AFD does not even come close. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extremely small number of significant sources available about, rather than produced by, this magazine. Searches turned up only one passing mention in an article about an internal Adventist lawsuit. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential keep -- A denominational magazine of a major denomination is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some niche segment. Does not see encyclopedic value except related to known individual. it can easily be merged but due to its promotional intend. Doubtful on that one as well. Light2021 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or wrong forum  Since this is a content dispute, the remedy for non-notability is not at a forum to determine if admin tools are needed, which they aren't.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing for actual independent notability, listed information is unconvincing, and that's why we take these to AfD as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 20 December 2016 (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.