Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHM (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AHM (magazine)

AHM (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Magazine with print run of 10-20 which has no evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you look at the article it says '...AHM produces 10-20+ copies...' Whenaxis (talk)
  • Delete Fails on all counts. Paste (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's not over yet than why did User:Paste say "'Delete Fails on all counts".Whenaxis (talk)
  • Delete - not even convinced it exists. Earlier versions cited www.ahm.ca as its website - that doesn't seem to exist. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete no evidence of any possible notability. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's "emergency" issue was its first in 2008? With a print run of 10-20+ copies? With that low a number, one would think an exact count would be easy. No notability whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. www.ahm.ca is non-extistent, the "emergency" issue was released because of the need of public attention to 'La Nina Formation' in the Atlantic. The count is not exact because there are different amounts of copies. And 10-20+ copies is just hard copies, there are 100-150 copies released over the e-mail. AHM is notable because its the hurricane-science magazine in the World. The only other hurricane-related magazine is a American magazine called 'Hurricane Protection Magazine'. And the reason its not noted on the article its because its still under construction. Whenaxis (talk)

  • Delete Crystal Ball. jonathon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The very small circulation of this magazine and the lack of Google hits should be our clue that we are unlikely to find any reliable sources that testify to this magazine's importance, even with a thorough search. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (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.