Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redstone Science Fiction

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. No argument was put forward to challenge the nomination and nobody has provided any evidence to suggest that the subject may be notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redstone Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable online science fiction magazine lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 66,000 Ghits for "redstone science fiction" on 22 July 2010 MikeRay (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Those initial numbers are notoriously incorrect. If you go to the last page you will see that the total is only 177 and they lack substance. ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject is the focus of coverage in reliable third-party sources. The number of Google hits is not relevant. - Dravecky (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for something entirely web-based, the lack of web presence is very troubling, as is the extremely paltry Alexa rank of 1,773,456. Does not appear to pass WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 29 July 2010 (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.