Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magonia (magazine)

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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magonia (magazine)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a magazine whose website resides in (404 for me) personal webspace of a domestic ISP. It ha ssuperficial referenciness, but the references don't appear to be about the actual magazine. No evidence of importance is presented. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As a defunct magazine (now a website), I might have said NN. HOwever criticism of UFO-believers is a notable topic. Keeping the article might be useful for recording where the magazine content is to be found. Undecided. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if there was any credible evidence that it is or was significant. I find none. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to show notability in the area. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct magazine, highly obscure, primary sources only, fails notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:01, 20 March 2015 (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.