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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I found nothing that would make this defunct magazine pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete The defunct news organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, fails WP:GNG per nom. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW; listed for three weeks without any improvement or defenders. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (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.