Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal Underground

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Underground[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources found to verify notability. Appears to be self-promotional. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Needs more third party RS. It does seem that the Tapcon2 affair is real.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteNo third-party sources in the article, I couldn't find any on google either. The site seems to be well kept-up and the Podcasts are current and done at a higher level than your average amateur, I couldn't get to the forums at work so I do not know if they are well trafficked but it seems like the magazine could be notable. The wikiarticle also seems to be of acceptable quality. I would like to see this article stay if someone can find at least one decent source demonstrating notability. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources and no indication this is a notable publication. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (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.