Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn New Thang


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn New Thang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Restored as a contested prod, but nominated for AfD because there is no assertion of notability. A7 does not apply to magazines, however, so cannot be speedied. Also, it may be worth mentioning that this showed up at deletion review. --Ginkgo100talk 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: Due to the controversy at DRV, I strongly recommend against SNOWing this -- the drama is not worth it. --Ginkgo100talk 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless those two issues contained some pretty blockbuster stuff that someone can source here. Montco 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and because there didn't seem to be any actual defense in the DRV for the article's existance beyond complaints about process. Homestarmy 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources indicating notability, no claims of notability or significance even. A magazine was published, it lasted for two issues. There aren't even any sources cited to establish that those two issues were published. But assuming that they were, there is not a hint about what they contained, or why they might have been even slightly notable. Perhaps a good article could be made about this mag (who can tell? although i doubt it) but if so, this isn't it. DES (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PROD contest has no rationale. --WaltCip 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: notability. A google search for "Damn New Thang" brings up primarily references to the wiki article plus a few other wiki references. Found only one reference in a 2005 blog.
 * Delete a fanzine that lasted just two issues. Ridiculously non-notable, unencyclopedic, and unsourcable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original PROD reason: nothing to indicate this magazine is notable (it lasted only two issues), no sources, and unverifiable. This also doesn't appear to be as controversial as the renominating admin claims it is (only one user on the DRV objected). --Core desat 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability, no WP:RS indicating that this magazine even so much as existed, ultimately a substub of an article that violates WP:V. -- Kinu t /c  18:43, 30 July 2007 (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.