Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Revival (UK magazine)

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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Revival (UK magazine)

The Revival (UK magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Magazine with no assertion of notability. Prod was removed by author without explanation. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless third-party sources with substantial coverage can be found. Jakew 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not seem that third-party sources exist.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete Third party verfication as to the existence and standing of the magazine has been provided. Allow further time for the stub to be expanded upon. 17:07, 3 September 2007
  • Do not delete J Milburn, prior to removing the prod I did provide my reason on the discussion page. Apologies if that was the wrong place to put it, although I believed I was following the instructions given in the prod notice. I suggested at the magazine's forum that others with more knowledge should expand the article and it looks like they have begun to do so. When it is a little more complete I will be happy to revise the article to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. I am not connected to the publication save that I comment on its web forum, and personally I judge that it is not an amateurish freesheet and that this is not a worthless exercise in self-promotion. Incidentally it has long ranked as the top Google response for the search term "revival" and you can of course browse the website to form an impression. Probably the question of its inclusion will be resolved when someone comes up with a circulation figure.100man 3 September 2007
    • Comment: Yes, you did provide a reason, I apologise. J Milburn 16:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: No probs, thanks. 100man 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep News coverage demonstrates notability. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability now asserted. Dean Wormer 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep . I have added numerous new sources. Can the deletion notice now be removed? (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.34.230 (talk)
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.