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. v/r - T P 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literarily[edit]

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

Article on a new magazine that was dePRODded by article creator (who is listed as the editor on the magazine's website). Original PROD reason was "New magazine, not a single item published yet, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nothing to add. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As has been said, no suggestion of notability at all, as well as potential COI. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 21:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (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.