Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off 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 ) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Take Off magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is predominately an unreferenced list of the contents of a series of magazines and thus completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. With all the unreferenced text removed the article would only consist of one remaining sentence. Inherently non-encyclopedic Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Article was prodded twice with the same concerns, tags removed without any edit summary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, looks like a phone book, fails WP:NOTDIR. Crum375 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * weak Delete This isn't the place for the contents page as presented in the article, but I'd have to say that the subject is probably notable on its own. But its probably easiest to scrap this and start over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is likely notable but the table of contents sections should be removed. RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Ahunt, plus there's a lot of unfinished stuff, which I consider Pointless. Minima  c  94 ( talk ) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the current article but think that the subject could meet WP:Notability (media) if written properly (which the current article isnt).--RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - There's a dab page (two actually) by the same creator for the sole purpose of this article at Take Off (disambiguation) (and Take Off (disambiguation).) that should be probably be deleted if this is deleted. Shadowjams (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's some coverage here, although I don't know whether it counts as significant.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (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.