Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Balls 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Balls Magazine[edit]

Non-notable publication. User name of original author tends to indicate that the article was created by the magazine's publisher. No references, unable to verify at all. Primarily seeks to promote. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything notable either, except a single promotional piece almost identical to the article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like the kind of magazine that should have sources referring to it, but I suppose that publications for British backpackers in Australia are not the focus of much interest outside British backpackers in Australia. I looked for sources; not a sausage. Fences and windows (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tagged the article for having only one source and lacking 3rd party sources. Just in case it survives AfD, which is very unlikely seeing the strong support for delete. I will not support either keep or delete at this moment, but I will be watching this AfD entry.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable. But I had trouble finding sources. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if one could verify the circulation of 50,000, I'd say "keep" in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, a lack of sources is going to be pretty crippling to that effort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 23 May 2009 (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.