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. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine with no mention in major media. Possibly no longer published. Mmoyer 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See [[1]]. This of course does not prove it's notability, and given the lack of other sources i am most inclined to say it should be deleted. --Jimmi Hugh 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am voting against for non-notability because a web page for the magazine does not come up on the first page of search engine results and the article is unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:39, 19 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, Quarl(talk) 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around for nearly two years. If it was going to amount to anything it should have done so by now. BTLizard 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if a better article can be written. This article has no sources and does not include much information about the magazine (such as who publishes it, when it started, what its circulation is, etc.). --Metropolitan90 05:25, 25 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.