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. Secret ^account 04:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GracieMag[edit]

GracieMag (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)

This seems like a magazine that should be notable, but it's been tagged as unsourced for 3 years. The problem is that I couldn't find independent sources that discuss this magazine. If someone can show it's covered in reliable sources I'll withdraw this nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep-The topic (a monthly magazine) seems notable. It would be better to expand the article inserting new sources rather than delete.--Goldenaster (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, but the problem is that I couldn't find independent sources. That's probably why it's been tagged for 3 years.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goldenaster, you're a new editor so I would suggest you read WP:N and WP:RS. Not all magazines are inherently notable, especially when there seems to be a lack of independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Delete I expected to do a quick Google search, copy a link to a reliable source and vote keep, but I'm really struggling to find any independent coverage that would let this pass any criteria of WP:NME. I'll hold off on voting to see if someone can find a source, but if not, I'm leaning toward delete. Vote changed to delete, although I'm open to changing it again if someone can find sources covering the magazine. CaSJer (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I will admit to being surprised at the lack of independent sources, but I didn't see any that would support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.