Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Purpose

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Purpose[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reason Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any independent, reliable sources for this magazine to establish notability. Though it was created in the 90's and may have had some news mentions at that time, I cannot find them online. This publication should be held to the same standard of notability as any other publication, and have mentions somewhere in reliable sources. Otherwise, I believe it should be deleted.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA and doesn't meet WP:GNG. References are itself and a mention because of someone famous for something else, worked for them for a bit. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:54, 27 April 2022 (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.