Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom PC magazine

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Custom PC magazine
The magazine may be notable, I don't know, but this looks like an ad.--Nabla 02:13, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * vote changed to keep, since it looks like it is notable and the current stub look OK.--Nabla 00:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * Delete and delete the associated image files, clearly created as a promotion for the magazine.--nixie 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- What is this? This doesn't even make sense as advertising. It looks like a cut-and-paste from their web site. --Tysto 03:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Move to BJAODN. This is not only a bad attempt at promotion ex Wikipedia, it is an epically bad example.  Almafeta 04:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this promotional webpage and all the irrelevant images (faces etc.) but keep the hardware pictures, they might be useful for real articles. (Assuming the uploader won't bother us with any silly copyright games). jni 06:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Magazine by a major UK publisher, audited circulation more than 24,000 (ABC, Jul-Dec 2004) one year after its introduction.  That's good circulation in the UK market for a specialist niche magazine. The content needs a severe editing (yes, it's obviously intended as an ad) but it shouldn't be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. If anyone wants to write an encyclopedic article about this publication, they may do so at any time. If Tony Sidaway thinks we need an article on it but doesn't want to start it himself, he should post it as an requested article. Leaving this article in place does no good. Acorns may grow into oaks, but artificial Christmas trees do not. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you'll find that this is incorrect. If you visit the article right now you'll see that a perfectly good stub has been created by the simple expedient of deleting the trash. I've never understood the "slash and burn" approach to unwanted content.  If an article contains stuff you don't like, delete that content, you don't even need to come to VfD to do that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but keep a stub. Might be good to see where it goes.  Possible copyvio? 216.158.31.195 17:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this please it can just be edited if you dont like it Yuckfoo 18:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is undeniably an ad, but it is a relatively significant publication.  I decided to be bold and chopped out all the fluff and most of the pictures, which left merely a stub. Gamaliel 19:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. 216.158.31.195 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * None of those 35 orphaned images are tagged, by the way. Uncle G 02:10, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Keep Very good UK magazine.
 * Keep ··gracefool |&#9786; 01:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This is a notable publication but the article is just plain advertising that's looks like a copyvio. JamesBurns 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't read the original version but the current version has been purged of advertising (thanks, whoever did the cleaning); keep this perfectly respectable stub. JamesMLane 08:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep a legitamate stub Falphin 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep stub on UK magazine with reasonable circulation. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep See no difference, save longevity and brevity, from The New Yorker or Time Magazine which even show similar cover pages. Fabartus 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Leave the stub it says enough. Nothing to do with the magazine's editorial staff, we just saw this today. As for advertising, it's highly unlikely. --Rogan 16:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .