Talk:MacTribe

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Headquarters[edit]

Are there any links that show that the company is located in Cambridge? I can't find any. OlYeller^Talktome 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ISSN number shows that it's published in Cambridge, MA. I consider this info to be verified. OlYeller^Talktome 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

User IlissaK from the page's history is Ilissa Knisley from the magazine. OlYeller^Talktome 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I'm not particularly sure if this subject is notable. It a product/company/news organization. As a product and company, it doesn't seem to have much coverage although I haven't checked recently. As far as I know, news organizations are inherently notable but I've never been comfortable with that and there's no specific WP:N guideline to follow. It is published but to what degree is hard to verify meaning that it may have an ISSN but is really just a blog which would fall under WP:WEB and whether or not it satisfies WP:WEB is unclear (has coverage from exactly two sources at this time but both seem to be reliable). I think an AfD would be the best way to determine the notability and future of this article. OlYeller^Talktome 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why you removed the PROD only to ask for an AfD. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide to Play, which would set a pro-deletionist precedent if passed. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest it be taken to AfD. I'm suggesting that if the issues are to be addressed regarding notability, it will have to be done in an AfD as the article doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion and I've contested the PROD meaning it can't be deleted under a PROD at any point in the future. As for the other AfD, surely you're not suggesting that one AfD with 4 contributors is setting a WP wide precedent. I hate to have to point this out to an admin but please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do the rest of your PRODs need going through as well? OlYeller^Talktome 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable. You are unsure if it's notable. If I understand your position correctly, you are stating that the precedent is unclear and that AfD would make an authoritative and public decision. Alternatively, we could slap on relevant cleanup tags and leave it. As for the SlideToPlay AfD, that's 4 contributors in the first 7 hours, but you're right, each article should be assessed independently whenever there are doubt (such as those you are raising). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]