Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Magazine (UK)

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Magazine (UK)[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and this nonsense is way too POV @South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a quick search on Google (which is all I did) would have been enough to establish notability. I've added sources such as The Observer and The Independent, both of which confirm the magazine's circulation and its 25 year history. If the tone of the article is wrong, fix it. Deletion isn't justified.--Michig (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is referenced sufficiently for verifiability and notability purposes. - Dravecky (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is heavily referenced and meets notability requirements. Some of the wording may be a little one-sided, but that can easily be changed.Wikigonish (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It ceased publication years ago and was never more than a fanzine for UFO buffs. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there's no expiry date on notability and the article is indeed heavily referenced. The NPOV issue is grounds for editing but not grounds for deletion.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability has now been established; neither POV nor 'fanzine' are a reason to delete; notability does not expire; and no other deletion rationales have been provided. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:36, 13 August 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.