Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call: Review


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Call: Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found nothing that shows this magazine is notable. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Three issues published, vanished without leaving almost any trace. No indication of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of verifiable notability, and the only available source seems to go to a trivial self-published blog. Therefore,Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, and is not in existence to promote otherwise unknown authors and creations. Also, there is no indication this magazine has any notable historical value or has had any significant historical impact.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:30, 12 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.