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 . Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Can't see this having significant coverage, and already been to draftspace and back already. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious spam with strong signs of paid editing. Arguably meets WP:G11 or WP:A7 for speedy. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are PR. Those are not sources. Does not pass notability standards. Graywalls (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a recent new magazine, linking to its own site and to a press release about a company receiving an award from the magazine, without evidence of notability. Searches find more of the same; no evidence to indicate that the magazine has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and smells like covert marketing to me. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.