Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lush for Life

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. Sandstein 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lush for Life[edit]

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

Two-year print run. A single feature in the Tampa Bay Times is nothing spectacular. Please ivote "delete" with Fake News! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure !voting via hashtag is really "a thing". At least I hope it isn't.
The magazine appears to have been open satire, which is not the same thing as fake news.
Delete - Pretty blatantly promotional. "Print circulation of 20,000" is self-sourced and dubious at best, and even by their own claim, 10,000 of that was basically stacks of papers they left at bars and cafes. Nearly everything in the article is self sourced, and...well...that seems likely because that's pretty much the only sourcing available, which means a big fat delete. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2017 (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.