Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Memory of Our People

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. czar 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory of Our People

[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)

Hard pressed to find anything whatsoever about this magazine in both English and Spanish. Also, the fact the official site is hosted through blogspot doesn't instill me with hope. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:NMAG--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: NMAG is an essay, and either way, which aspect does it satisfy? Publishing articles doens't prove it's made a significant impact unless there are the sources to prove it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The mere act of publishing doesn't guarantee notability and no real notability is even claimed here and certainly not substantiated. The article seems more of a hanger to create a list of no less than 114 non-notable people in a list (which should be deleted by itself), including a single blue link that is to the wrong person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, including Spanish where it's either brief mentions or blog articles.--Pontificalibus 09:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2019 (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.