Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fact Magazine (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ~ Anthøny 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Magazine (UK)

Fact Magazine (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable, unsourced. Whether sources exist is hard to judge because a Google search yields lots of different Fact Magazines, but searching for "Fact Magazine" and "Barry McGee" gives only their Website, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Huon 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • N Delete zero reliable sources proving notability. VanTucky (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A vaguely notable incident occured regarding an advert placed in this magazine ([1] [2]), and the magazine is occasionally cited in British mainstream press on music issues (e.g. [3]). JulesH 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the advert controvesy, this atcile could do with a lot of work though. Adjective Noun 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely needs references, advert controversy likely notable. Cap'n Walker 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Harlowraman 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep there are several sources for the advertising controversy, and the magazine does seem to be frequently referred to. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep like to know more about the controversy. Needs refs. Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 12:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 6 November 2007 (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.