Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceasefire (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. Frankly, as a web only magazine, this could have been speedy deleted as an A7. Spinning Spark 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire_(magazine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no references, nothing about the 'magazine' shows up in news sources. Soosim (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some newspaper mention here: Peter Tatchell in The Guardian, 2009, Mark Townsend in The Observer, 2011, though the role of the magazine in both is probably tangential. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom; despite and precisely for coverage similar to that offered by Hahc. It lacks WP:CORPDEPTH; also fails WP:GNG for substantial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.