Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V8X 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V8X Magazine[edit]

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

Very short article with no references and no assertion of notability. Falcadore (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia does claim that anyone can edit it, right? Well, same biz here. We all need to help out in certain places. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (AEDST)

Reply: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but not on any topic. I ask you again to consult wikipedia's guidelines on WP:Notability. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why not first PROD, instead of bringing out the big guns and taking it to AfD just 2 hours and 9 minutes after creation? --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The editor concerned has a long history of single sentence unreferenced articles on non-notable topics that never get expanded. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since nothing more has been forthcoming from the article creator and nobody else seems tobe able to come up with sources either. The article creator does indeed create lots of stubby unsourced articles... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree with Randykitty - this AFD is premature. The magazine might not be notable, and there might not be sources that say so - but, seriously, two hours? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like there's any hope for expansion (establishing notability, finding reliable sources to write from). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (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.