- 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. postdlf (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fishmax fishing magazine
- Fishmax fishing 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)
non notable publication WuhWuzDat 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - search revealed nothing other than promo material for this online site, even when using "FishMax" as the search term, which did generate a few more hits, but nothing supporting notability. SeaphotoTalk 08:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Seaphoto Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article was nominated for deletion less than a minute after it was created. It never had a chance to develop. Having said that, it is hard to see how it could be made notable. Wavehunter (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply; its not the articles notability that is under discussion here, but rather the notability of the articles subject. WuhWuzDat 06:54, 30 March 2011 (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.