Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf Punk


 * 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   keep. Sources provided which demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalk stalk 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Golf Punk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD, original rational was "Non-notable defunct magazine" which remains valid. GiantSnowman 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's received significant media coverage. It's won awards which don't themselves prove notability but demonstrate the magazine has had some impact.  It also had a sister publication Football Punk which should be mentioned in the same article (or if you want to combine it in an article on the publisher). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While I don't think all of thsoe above sources are valid references, many of them are, and are more than enough to establish notability. Being defunct doesn't automatically render something unnotable, and there was enough media coverage on it to pass the GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I read some of the sources linked to which are major British publications. Enough coverage to prove notability.   D r e a m Focus  23:01, 27 June 2012 (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.