Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poweredge Magazine

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Poweredge Magazine

Poweredge Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. I am not sure of the magazine exists or not. If its not, then its a hoax. If the magazine exists, the article is currently non-notable. JJ98 (Talk) 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I contested the prod because the reason was "Hoax magazine, no sources to establish the notability" and I found the website [1] which appears to support the article. That doesn't mean that it isn't a hoax, of course, but means that there is at least some reason to believe that it is authentic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete it may exist but it fails WP:GNG. hardly any coverage [2]. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have included source citations to show notability. Should I include more external links? Twenty3twenty (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have provided ISSN, publishing information, and source citations. Please advise what else is needed to close this contestation/discussion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.155.193 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what's needed. Are there any other independent sources which discuss the magazine? Preferably in some depth. bobrayner (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2010 (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.

I'm confused why this was deleted. It was independently sourced and clearly not a hoax. It meets general notability requirements and even included ISSN and publishing information. I understand it could have used further sources, but when I came back to add them, the page was deleted. Can this article please be re-posted so I don't have to retype the entire entry? Thank you. Twenty3twenty (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)