- 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. I read Cycloenim's argument, and can only say that if evidence of independent recognition can be provided, then another article might be created which does not have the problems this article has. At present, everything is sourced to itself, and bears resemblance to advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which caravan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Just advertising un-notable magazine.Triwbe (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think it is notable, needs a fair amount of work but it is a recognised (arguably..) magazine. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Ugh, this is awful. It's a vanity-spam-self-promo-COI-advert, one of the worst ever. On the talk page, the author admits "The page is designed as a reference tool to inform the public about a viable publication." That's what I like--honest spam! No, actually I hate spam. Nuke this can of it, nuke it hard. Qworty (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2008 (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.