Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix (wargaming 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. Will userfy upon request if material needs to be salvaged for a merge, but there is relatively little content. Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix (wargaming magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Besides the grognard source mentioned in the article, I could only find an entry in a list of wargmaing magazines and various sites selling issues of the magazine. Perhaps there are sources in the paper world, but to the extent I could search, this topic falls below the notability threshold. Mark viking (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This was the house magazine of the UK distributor for Simulation Publications and so the worse case is that we would merge there. This was pre-internet and so coverage will mainly be offline in other magazines and books from that era.  I have a collection of such and will see what I can find. Warden (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2013 (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.