Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorezone 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorezone magazine[edit]

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

lack of notability, article largely unreferenced, circulation figures false, likely a vanity page by the publisher or his surrogates Bustter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the article's deletion because it's pretty clearly a vanity creation by the editor and publisher, Brynn Hammond. Hammond's imdb biography was written by one of his employees, and something similar seems to have happened here.

The magazine stopped appearing on newsstands several months ago; there's been no official announcement of its demise, and no news coverage either. Certainly a magazine selling over 200,000 copies per month would create some stir with its disappearance -- however, this circulation figure is certainly a lie that originated with the publisher, elsewise it's unlikely it would have ceased publication.

Most telling of all, the official Gorezone Facebook pages (there's a couple of them) have only a couple of hundred members -- how could this be for a 200,000+ circulation magazine that only recently ceased publication?

All of this supports my long-held feeling that the article was created by publisher Hammond as a form of advertising, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Bustter (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a neutral party can be found who considers the magazine noteworthy enough to merit a properly-sourced, neutral pov article, and this party is willing to put in the sweat -- great. But opinion of the magazine is generally very low, I doubt such a party will be found. Bustter (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has anything to say? I'll start:

Delete: subject's notability not established, article lacks citations from reliable sources, lacks npov. Bustter (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to argue to keep this based on these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], but then I noticed that the magazine from the article was first published in 2005, so it can't be the same. There are couple of references out there that do refer to this magazine [6] [7], but not enough to establish notability - frankie (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (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.