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. WjBscribe 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Sr13(T|C) 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Acalamari 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sufficient notability exists, this article does a poor job of establishing it. First source is a directory listing. Second source is the Answers.com reprint of Literary magazinehere--in which The Lotus Reader isn't even mentioned specifically, but as part of a list. Wysdom 04:52, 28 April 2007 (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.