Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardboiled 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hardboiled Magazine
Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement that cites no secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- OBVIOUS DELETE, absolutely no evidence of notability, no attempt at references or third-party citations. Fails miserably, WP:N, WP:INC. Seems like a self-promoting advert. Candidate for {{db-inc}} deletion. --Sallicio
05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC) - Speedy Delete as not asserting notability and blatant spam. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Questions here I am the creator of this page but i am not sure about what i'm suppose to do to make this page not an article for deletion. Please do state clearly what I am missing or have added carelessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project2yolk (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Demonstrate that reliable, independent sources have taken notice of this magazine. Usual way to do this is to find e.g. some newspaper articles or academic papers which discuss the magazine at length (not articles printed in the magazine itself, or brief mentions in laundry lists). Web forums, random Geocities pages, etc. don't count as reliable sources.
-
- Anyway even if you find such sources, the page itself may be kept, but other Wikipedians will likely rewrite the text from the ground up. There's too much obvious conflict of interest here, with long tangents that aren't related to the magazine itself, and the selection of facts and the language clearly designed to promote the magazine itself ("An online digital magazine like Hardboiled has more benefits for advertisers that a print magazine simply cannot do") rather than act as an objective, third-party reporting of the facts about the magazine. cab (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, would not appear to be a notable publication yet. While I wish the publishers success in gaining a wide readership, they're just not there yet. The "Advertising" section is a bit spammy too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
- Delete The lack of notability is egg-asperating Ecoleetage (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ADVERT, WP:WEB, WP:N Gary King (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Ecoleetage because I like the joke. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I personally would have speedied this as blatant advertisement, but an AfD is fine too. Veinor (talk to me) 03:48, 25 April 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.
