Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glass Eye

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Eye[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 29. Snotbot t • c » 15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this niche publication is notable enough for an entry. I'd recommend redirecting it to Sin Klub Entertainment, but that seems to be up for deletion as well. I know that niche publications and items have trouble getting coverage, but that doesn't exempt them from having to have them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no notability... --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (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.