Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa

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. No notability, no assertion of verifiability through reliable, or any, sources. Rudget . 15:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and salsa[edit]

Notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. I'm getting tired of typing that sentence. Maybe we need a shortcut, like WP:NAoN or something. --Hyperbole (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article makes no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7SD - No assertion of notability is enough for a speedy. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's your shortcut right there, Hyperbole. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability seems to be the problem here. Also, there was a speedy tag placed on this, but it was removed without any reason, by the creator of the article User talk:Soulandsalsa - what a coincidence! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a spam article with little/no real context. If the magazine became notable it would be worthy of an article. At the moment, it appears to be a mere e-zine or similar. SMC (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding two comments were moved here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa (2nd nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted, and a quick search seems to indicate that this is because there is no notability to assert. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability whatsoever. The creator did add what they apparently believe to be an assertion in this edit ("distributed throughout the DFW area and other cities") but added no sources to back it up. That must have been enough for the speedy-tagger, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 9 February 2008 (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.