- 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. → Call me Hahc 21 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
V8X Magazine
AfDs for this article:
- V8X Magazine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and fancruft. No secondary sourcing has been attempted far less achieved. Specialist publication of limited appeal. Content of the article is far from complete list of covers. Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Falcadore ( talk) 09:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Falcadore ( talk) 10:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Falcadore ( talk) 10:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Deleted in 2012 for a lack of verifiable references, and I don't see that anything has changed. Specialist magazines sometimes suffer from a lack of coverage in other media, but there's really nothing for this one. One V8X editor writes as a guest expert on Conversant Media's Australian sports website The Roar, but that's only the barest of inherited trivial mentions (and neither The Roar nor Conversant Media currently have articles, which isn't conclusive, but hardly a good sign). It has a listing in one volume of Benn's Media, but that's literally a directory listing. And that's really it, far from what's needed to establish notability. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't see that this has overcome the issues raised last time. We need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. St★lwart 111 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.