Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Insights

: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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Atomic Energy Insights]]=

:{{la|Atomic Energy Insights}} ([{{fullurl:Atomic Energy Insights|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Insights}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Commercial wikispam Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete - not notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This turns out to be a notable publication (see for example [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Atomic%20Energy%20Insights%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp Google Books], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Atomic%20Energy%20Insights%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Google Scholar], [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Atomic+Energy+Insights%22&um=1 Gnews]), particularly for its 1996 study of Chernobyl after-effects. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep and Expand It seems to me that you're just nominating it because it is a stub. It seems pretty notable (compared with half the other stuff here) and with a little work it could be useful to someone. Bigvinu (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Insignificant newsletter lacking consequential third-party coverage (also, I never heard of it). The only two citations in the article are to very minor references to this newsletter (along the lines of "Atomic Energy Insights had an article about this topic"). Google couldn't find anything more substantial than that. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Bear in mind that the media does not often report on itself and that notable, specialized media publications won't necessarily show much on a web search. I think the google searches I've already posted demonstrate this publication is frequently cited, which satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. When the company that creates a newsletter is a redlink, it would seem to follow that the newsletter isn't notable. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Does no harm, maybe borderline notable, but not spammy -- Chzz ► 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep and Expand - this article is notable per Bailey, has good references, and can easily grow from a stub. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 06:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.