Impose (magazine): The Flavorwire page mentions Impose but mostly talks about Evers separately from his work there, the New Yorker EL is an ad for a concert, and the KC Pitch ( archive ) might not even be a reliable source.  Found no other coverage about the magazine itself.  PROD was rejected due to the number of incoming links but I don't find that a particularly compelling case.  Just because a source is used in 500 articles doesn't mean it is itself notable.  Notability and reliability are separate standards, no?  Same argument from before still applies entirely.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of sourcing about the magazine, plenty of sources about things being "imposed".  It might be a RS, but without any sort of critical discussion of it, we can't have an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A Google Books search shows it being cited in several dozens of publications (those by the Oxford University Press, Springer, Taylor & Francis, among others) so it is easily a commonly used, reliable source (meeting #1 and #4 of WP:NPERIODICAL ).  If it is used on 500 Wikipedia pages as a reliable source, common sense dictates it should probably have a page itself.  (Sources about niche, but reputable sources rarely exist; but such pages are important for the encyclopedia in a meta sense.)  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic as it is defined in WP:GNG.  One of the sources cited in this article, the last reference, looks like it could very well count towards notability.  (There's a paywall, so I didn't see entire source).  But there would need to be multiple sources like this in order to meet GNG.  - Hannahthom7 ( talk ) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Periodicals (and professors) have slightly different notability requirements in which we often don't necessarily base it fully on the existence of sources directly discussing them.  We base it on how much they're cited in scholarly sources.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability policy should appreciate it is important that we have information available to readers on widely-used sources used including those used by Wikipedia.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#AfD_notice .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus