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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case magazine[edit]

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

No third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 13:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A7. No indication of significance. Pburka (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this publication; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 18:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significance, not to mention the article is dreadfully written. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some clean-up and re-writing as well as removing the dead external links. I won't comment on the subject's (unlikely) notability as I have not searched for sources but the need for clean-up is (almost) never a reason to delete an article. - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS about the magazine can be found. While it appears that the publication has interviewed some notable subjects, that by itself does not confer notability upon the publication. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete technically not an A7 candidate, but a local small-run magazine that lasted all of 3 issues is about as non-notable as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point A7 was extended to include organizations. I think a magazine ought to qualify, no? Pburka (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One could interpret it either way, I guess. I wouldn't normally A7 something that's at least nominally about a physical product (A7 specifically exempts "creative works"). That said, this particular thing is so incredibly, stupendously, monumentally non-notable that the whole thing could have been IARed off the planet and I doubt anyone would raise a fuss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small scale magazine that seems to lack any assertion of notability or any proof thereof. Ducknish (talk) 23:28, 16 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.