Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Balls

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. Although the 'keep' exponents raise a decent argue against deleting per their sources, the common consensus is that the sources aren't sufficient to keep the article. Daniel 07:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Balls[edit]

Declined Speedy Delete. Possible non-notable subject though Google returns some hits. Prefer a wider debate rather than prod Pedro | Chat 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable magazine. A quick google search shows up very few reliable hits for this magazine. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, there are few hits for this magazine. It is non notable except, perhaps, in a small niche market. There is little indication that notability exists there. --Stormbay 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable magazine. Keb25 11:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a niche magazine that is notable in that market.[1][2] It is known internationally[3][4], and recognised as an appropriate publication to advertise in to reach certain demographics, by the ACT govt. John Vandenberg 10:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per JV. Twenty Years 13:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, :: maelgwn - talk 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the press and ACT government mentions are minor and peripheral. Searching through Australian newspapers shows no articles primarily about the magazine. Appears to be a free advertising-supported magazine that has attracted little interest in the wider world. Fails to be notable - Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JV very well known in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex McKenzie (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — Alex McKenzie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I hope that whoever makes the final decision on this piece will check Australian sources because it doesn't appear to meet notability there, either. --Stormbay 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial mentions in some newspapers and government publications. Nothing substantial. Schools and churches with better references get deleted, so why keep this. Assize 12:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have reviewed and tend to agree with Assize and Peripitus on the sourcing. Fails WP:N. Orderinchaos 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read the publication myself several times, so I wouldn't regard a wikipedia entry on it as spam. However, if there are no reliable references we can't write a substantial truthiness-free article on it for now. Andjam —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:52, 30 September 2007 (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.