Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totnes Community Mag

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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totnes Community Mag

Totnes Community Mag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable, unenclyclopedic content. Unremarkable defunct community newsletter with an unverified circulation of 50 -100. No secondary sources to support notability. Google search reveals only mirror sites. The article's author was involved in the magazine: http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/User:SqueakBox (see history state prior to todays date) 3tmx 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons in nomination, particularly the lack of sources. --kateshortforbob 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even if we just go ahead and assume the article is 100% true, come on... circulation 50 to 100?! When I was a kid I used to pass out xeroxed comics I drew that did better business than that. No real references either: the two links in the article are a government funding request (for £900!) that doesn't even mention the magazine by name, and the other is a very short "review" of the group that published it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Totnes, SqueakBox 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment -Strongly disagree with merge Contray to what the article author thinks the content is simply and completely non notable, and unverifiable regardless of whether it is incorporated into the page Totnes or not. If it is merged the issues regarding verifiability and notability are still pertinent. How is this newsletter culturally significant in any way??? Imagine if every single community newsletter ever published in every single small town thought it deserved a mention on Wikipedia. Then think about the implication that every single community group, village council etc would by implication entitled to a wikipedia page. Squeakbox why don't you give reasons as to why you think this deserves a mention on wikipedia (you had plenty of opportunity on the talk page but didn't either - maybe because its position is unjustifiable?)

3tmx 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable resources, a circulation of 50-100, no notability. No merge, for the reasons outlined above. Nuttah68 11:22, 12 August 2007 (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.