Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega-zine

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-zine[edit]

I prodded this a while back with the following reason: "Article about a nonnotable website. No reason is given for notability and no external sources are cited. A quick google search shows that the site isn't widely known and not popular enough outside its small fanbase to be worthy of inclusion." The article was taken down but just now has been resurrected with no change in notability or pickup in reliable, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but sort out - I saw this article had been deleted as per PROD, and I thinik it's a worthy subject for an article about the teletext page - see the article for Digitiser, but seems to have become an article about some kind of website keeping the memory of megazine alive, which doesn't seem to be notable in itself. I'll see what I can do to sort the article out a bit in the next couple of days. Is there a wiki-project Teletext? Bradley10 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but as above, sort out. I am the page creator, so my will to keep this page is somewhat biased. It's one of the few pages on teletext (terrestrial or digital, on any channel) which is still submission based. If any teletext page is notable, I think this one is. I believe it is notable, but I suppose the fact I did (and occasionally still do) mix in circles of it's users will cause me to believe that, and it's possible nobody out side the clique I seem to have got my self involved in care, or even knows, about it. That having been said, the current article is poor and unreferenced (icluding, no doubt, some of my edits during a younger and less educated period on Wikipeida). I don't really take much of an interest in the place any more, and currently I have very little time to sit and edit Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see it stay and be tidied up. Alternatively, would stubbing it rather than deleting it not be a better way to clean it up (though I am aware this was not the rationale behind the early speedy delete or this AfD)? Lawful Hippo (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could be greatly improved with the new RSS feeds and Megazine's new online home. The article would easily be cleaned up and referenced. As Lawful Hippo states, Megazine is one of the few reader submitted areas of teletext, and is viewed and adored by many. Including those members of the Vegetable Revolution -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelFairy998 (talk • contribs) — RebelFairy998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockManQ (talk • contribs)

I closed this article earlier, but two votes isn't consensous. My mistake as I am fairly new here. Please continue discussion until consensous is acheved. Oh and abstain due to earlier closure. Thanks, RockManQ (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable teletext page. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not sure whether actually nobody out side the mentioned clique knows about it but it really seem that nobody wrote about them in reliable sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE (possibly falling under WP:WEB and/or WP:ORG??), nor am I able to find reliable sources to support the article. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:18, 5 September 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.