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. Cutting through the SPA's we;re left with a consensus that this magazine is not notable Courcelles 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Quarters Magazine[edit]

The Four Quarters 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)

No evidence of notability except some in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are atleast a 1000 unique hit in a week as per our Wordpress Hit counter plugin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As said before, that is just an in-passing mention, which hardly contributes to notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Randykitty::I agree I edited a few entries made by others only to make the arguments come across more clearly and that some of my own comments were made while I wasn't online resulting separate IPs.But I hope you trust me when I say some are genuine Ips of different users. I am sorry if my actions did not adhere to wiki guidelines. I am not here to show majority vote or fight for the sake of it with you. I am sure u have a basis for which you are arguing for deletion of the page.However, all I am trying here is to defend my case.Please do not jump into conclusions "None of the "keep" votes up till now are policy based or bring significant sources and are likely to all be ignored by the closing admin." without clicking the links. I request you to go through them with a unbiased, non deletionist, like you claim in your user profile :).Please consider the last source mentioned "The Four Quarters Magazine featured in Indian Newspaper Daily News and Analysis (DNA) 20,Oct 2013. Please check the link below as a proof of notability and reliability: "The Four Quarters Magazine, In Priase of the Past" http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=53781&boxid=11014&ed_date=2013-10-20&ed_code=820082&ed_page=9 " I am not here to fight really brother. Please go through the links we all have shared under keep vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs)
  • Well, now that you know the rules, perhaps you can strike your extra !votes. As for the links you provided, of course I have looked at them. If I thought that any of them would establish notability, I would withdraw the deletion nomination immediately. However, not even the DNA link helps, as press releases or this kind of announcement do not show any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Randykitty:: If the newspaper published the CFS without us sending them doesn't it qualify for notability? Its an independent source, reliable and unbiased, so it cannot be influenced by any other entity.
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.
More