Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Psychic Week
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychic Week[edit]
- The Psychic Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website, fails to meet WP:GNG / WP:WEB. No achievements, impact or historical significance and no significant coverage in reliable soruces. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article claims that the website "claims to 'uniquely report the news before it happens.'" I propose that we let the website predict whether or not this AfD will pass. Surely it would be notable if it could actually predict the future. If the website says it will be deleted count this as a !vote to keep. If the website says it will be kept count this as a !vote to delete. All Cretans are liars. 208.54.4.255 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to have recently changed its name to Magna Intuitum[1].
- However I'm not sure that's any more notable.--Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can predict that it will fail WP:GNG and Prediction Magazine may be a major publication within the field, but being website of the month does not pass WP:Fringe#Notability. Kooky2 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage, let alone significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2012 (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.