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. Tone 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tail[edit]

Black Tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure pornographic magazine. No reason is given regarding its notability, as per Wikipedia standards. Google searching does not produce anything of encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a stub for now. Midhart90 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you'd think of all things porn wouldn't be under-represented on the web, but I couldn't find anything at all about this other than it exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sadly, but if Midhart90 could send me a copy let me know. Weirdly poor attempt to create an article, some sources or elaboration would be good DRosin (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. No references. No claim of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (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.