Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club International

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The result was keep/withdrawn —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 02:54Z

[edit] Club International

Club International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article fails to assert the importance of its subject; {{prod}} and {{db}} were both removed without changing the article at all. Article as it is now written meets Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7. Nothing in the article qualifies it for inclusion in an encyclopedia.Nicer1 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I will withdraw my nomination in favor of the {{notability}} tag now on the article and the information on its talk page if the two editors with the Delete recommendations below agree. I have left requests on both their talk pages.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it undergoes a major overhaul very soon, I would say delete. Ganfon 21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (but clean-up) - possibly not the best-selling, but undoubtedly in the top five, of UK top shelf magazines. Has been around for years and was part of every British male's teen years! Certainly notable enough but the article needs expanding. Will try and find time to do it. I notice the nominator of this disposal has only ever made contributions to delete Paul Raymond top shelf magazines like this. Fishy, to say the least.--SandyDancer 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sandy and arguments made at the Club deletion page. NeoFreak 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a reference to the article (why am I working on porn articles?). NeoFreak 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: a clearly notable mass-market newsstand publication from a major publisher of such magazines. It might be useful to add a figure for audited circulation to this article, to demonstrate this. -- The Anome 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's tidied up to show sourced notability, and expanded to more than this stub. Simon Cursitor 15:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It does need cleanup as SandyDancer mentioned, but this is not a viable deletion candidate at all. This is a magazine with major distribution. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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.