Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extrovert 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 of the debate was delete.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Extrovert magazine
Nn online magazine. Nn Alexa rank. 193 Google hits (10 unique). No media coverage. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Perfecto 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. -- Saberwyn - 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — M o e   ε  03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is eveyone stuck on what Google has to say? Google search result numbers are worth as much as the swamp land that's for free in Florida. It's the QUALITY of the information and if it's VERIFIABLE.Kmac1036 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, Verifiable it is not. Show your sources then, to prove I'm wrong. --Perfecto  05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether Google fairly measures notability depends on the subject. Ruby Archer, a poet circa 1900, didn't Google much, but was still verifiable.  However, Google is certainly a good way to check notability for an online magazine, as this claims to be. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Incognito 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alexa rank 625,012. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alexa rank 625,012. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:15, 20 January 2006 (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.