Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EG (magazine)

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination was withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EG (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)

Non notable publication. Fails GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. OGBranniff (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. OGBranniff (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is the coverage in practically all important chess composition journals like The Problemist, Probleemblad, Die Schwalbe, StrateGems, Springaren, Phénix (and many other) enough? They are reliable sources, just they are usually not online. Actually, EG was arguably the most important chess composition journal devoted solely to endgame studies. Ruziklan (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with User:Ruziklan - historically, a very important publication for the endgame problemist. Another random source would be p.91 of The Encyclopedia of Chess by Golombek, but it would appear that the proposer only has access to the world of Google. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a very famous magazine. Some sources have been added. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, the user is right that I only did a Google search. If I would have known this publication was listed in Golombek, I would not have listed this. I am going to try to get a print edition of Golombek myself. Nomination withdrawn. OGBranniff (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2013 (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.