Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auxiliary (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. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Auxiliary (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable magazine. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. red dog six (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have some notable sources. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which would those be? The self-written description of the magazine,  the article from the magazine about a NN author, a brief mention of the magazine, or another even more brief mention of the magazine. If you are referring to the ones in the article, these do not even come close.  If you are aware of others that can be used for the article, please add them so the article might have a chance for inclusion. Since you are the author of the article the onus to provide adequate references falls to you.  red dog six  (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, for crying out loud, just delete it then. I was just contributing to the Wikipedia project.  The deletionists are out in full force. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, needs more and better sources about the magazine, from reliable sources independent of the magazine, to meet the threshold of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom and Green Cardamon said it all. Fails GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Fails GNG. Resolute 22:39, 30 August 2013 (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.