Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayday 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 was   delete. NW ( Talk ) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mayday Magazine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Mayday Magazine is an orphaned article, and I cannot find any reliable sources to back up the little information in the article, thus deeming the article not notable. Also used for self-promotional purposes. The creator is "Maydaymagazine". Cheers, Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry for bumbling in like a moron, fellas, but I can't figure out how to contribute to this thread except via this method, should it work. I don't know about this magazine in Ontario--which I think is defunct--but we're running an online magazine called MAYDAY at www.maydaymagazine.com, which is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.190.22 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as spam. Article is entirely promotional. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * declined although its purpose may be promotional, it is not pure spam, and could very easily be reworded to be non promotional.  However that does not prejudice it being deleted for non notability.  Google has 252 hits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find very little to substantiate notability. Their own page indicates a small paper with limited runs and distribution.  The only thing I could find was this behind a pay wall and based on the snippet of text, it looks more like a mention rather than an article about the magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't even bother to claim notability, let alone achieve it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (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.