Talk:Frankie (magazine)

Content please
A friend was telling me how wonderful this magazine is, while I was telling her of New Scientist. I asked whether a Wikipedia entry existed for Frankie, and found myself here. It's all promotional waffle, there is no description of the magazine's content (apart from praise). Also, there are no references. I'd go through and make it sound neutral, but there's no material around which to work - and I don't know anything about the magazine myself (which would be original research). I'm not looking up sources, because my internet is throttled at the moment, and I don't care enough to wait. If it is as excellent as I am told, there should be enough reference material around to make this a good article. Otherwise, AFD time.--Vreemdst (Shout me · Stalk me) 08:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Frankie is basically about embracing your Inner Nana, the lack of a good Wikipedia page seems perfect. AFDing it is a bit harsh, considering that Frankie is such a phenomenon of Australian magazine publishing (38,000 copies each two months) and has some of the best contemporary writing in the country. For those that really want to know what Frankie magazine like, their website is a fair summary of the tone of the zine. Gdt (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

^^ This is precisely what is wrong with both the article and the magazine itself. Thedangerouskitchen (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)