Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumps & Systems

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. Shimeru (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pumps & Systems

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

This trade periodical seems to be a low circulation and non notable trade magazine and a possible vehicle for spam links created by a single purpose account. I can't see what the alleged reference is for, it just looks to me like a random link. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Appears to be the most notable trade publication in its subject. 42,000 readership is high circulation for a specialized periodical like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "most notable in its subject" does not mean it is notable; comparatives do not do the job. I am more notable than my fellows in my profession, but that does not, of itself, make me notable. In the land of the blind a one eyed man is king, but that does not make him notable. It's a laudable view, but not encyclopaedic without more to assert and verify the notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

notability is always notability within the subject. we don't judge softball players on how notable they would be if they were playing baseball. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, kings are notable per WP:POLITICIAN :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether this is an important or unimportant trade publication is beside the point; I looked and, while I found some references to things that had been published in it, I found no secondary sources that are about this periodical as a subject in its own right. It would therefore appear not to meet the broadest notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 13 April 2010 (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.