Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.s. travel magazine
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. Tone 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U.s. travel magazine[edit]
- U.s. travel magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable magazine, no claims of notability, no sources, bad capitalization. There doesn't appear to be a speedy deletion category for magazines. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. It's not WP:SPAM (CSD G11), but it's not a notable magazine, and there are no sources cited. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it probably is spam and it has the stink of copyvio but I can't find the exact text elsewhere. Regardless it's not a notable magazine. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being of a nasty turn of mind (if I didn't say it, someone else would...), I tend to suspect people's motives. And I can't see anyone putting up an article on this company without good reason. (The magazine itself is not the subject of discussion, but I once nearly got a job writing this sort of thing.) It is a difficult name to research. Very common wording that makes separating the magazine in question not an easy task. (Potential advertisers might be impressed with the number of ghits, though.) The online version gets a few, but nothing worth noting (so far as I can see). Peridon (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sounds interesting, but notability is by no means established. — C M B J 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems totally un-notable. Turgan Talk 13:31, 24 August 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.