Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal Magazine (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Magazine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per User:Kleuske's nomination, particularly the emphasis at WP:GNG on secondary sources. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable sources. I tried searching with the former editor's name, the publisher, and a few other variations, but it's just Wikipedia mirrors and forum posts. There are a bunch of trivial mentions on Google Books, but all the ones I checked were people who claimed to have written for the magazine, not independent coverage. It's possible I gave up too quickly, but I didn't see anything that would give me hope of finding good results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources for this topic. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: You're you judging it by the wrong criteria. Sure it wont be mention in the main stream RS because it is about folklore and such. Bigfoot (with no RS) and even Mothman (with no RS) have articles regardless. This mag keeps people up-to date with current Memes, and other non-sensical beliefs and talk. It may not have a wide circulation like many american and mainland European mags but the UK has a much smaller population, so to delete this, smack of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Jimbo Wales himself was faced with the same systemic bias (and no RS) problem when he created Mzoli's and it got deleted just 20 minutes after. But it still there today Mzoli's. --Aspro (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This article has NO signs of notability whatsoever. There needs to be independent reliable sources to confirm its notability to have its own article. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be a public directory of all businesses and websites - it doesn't work that way. Also, may I suggest that since we're in its second nomination, if this subject keeps asking for article space without offering any reliable source that it be blacklisted from Wikipedia for spam purposes.Scorpion293 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2016 (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.