Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocturnal Submissions

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturnal Submissions

Obsolete, obscure journal that ceased publication 6 years ago.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to have been a legitimate publication. Wikipedia is a useful historical record. Pburka 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 16:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can find evidence it existed, but njot that it was influential or widely published. Is there any verification that it was anythign other than author vanity, as some such journals are? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We could ask at the regional Australian Wikipedians' notice board. At any rate, being a defunct publication should be a reason for a historical article, not deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it does make verifiability more difficult. A lot of literary journals have tiny circulation and are largely vanity, as I'm sure you know. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate magazine, possibly of historical interest. — Stumps 14:20, 22 November 2005 (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.