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. While there were some comments left, no one felt sufficient strong enough to recommend that this be kept. The consensus is that it should be deleted. Should it meet the criteria for inclusion at a future date, it can be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ami (magazine)

[edit]

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

Non-notbale magazine. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previos deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Magazine. Judging from this, the article is pretty much identical to the one that was deleted. I was going to tag it for deletion under CSD#G4, but since the original reasons for deletion were the magazine being "brand new" and "a startup", it could be argued that a few months later that no longer applies.--Beloved Freak 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the following references, but I don`t know if they are enough.
- http://savvima.com/2010/11/16/new-jewish-weekly-magazine/
- http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=11886&alias=new-ami-magazine-launched Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Those sources are a good start, but I also am not sure that they are sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was first published in Ami Magazine and was republished in major publications as well as in the Chicago Tribune.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwew (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - The Obama Chronicles invocation is just to a site that links many Obama-related things, which is basically just a link to the Chicago Tribune -- it confers little significance on the article at best, and doesn't invoke Ami. The Cross-Currents piece is just the author of the article reusing the article in a blog, which again doesn't suggest much in the way of notability of Ami. So far, I'm not seeing anything that crosses the notability threshold. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this on The Chicago Tribune web site.
- http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/fl-jjps-shafran-1229-20101228/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.98.29 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (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) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. C'mon, this magazine has only published 10 issues! What makes it notable other than that it is new? Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2011 (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.