Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite Traveler

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. A number of sources were presented, but failed to convince other participants in this discussion that WP:N was met. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Traveler

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

Seemingly NN magazine. Failed numerous CSDs for G11 and A7 for strange reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom fails GNG Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. - TheMagnificentist 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per TheMagnificentist. The first two links aren't relevant at all, but the others are ok. --Hirsutism (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little coverage from reliable sources. Most links provided by TheMagnificentist aren't reliable, barely mention Elite Traveler, or aren't about Elite Traveler at all. Cjhard (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as naked advertising for a non-notable magazine. Thank you for the ten links; unfortunately the first two are completely off-topic, and the other eight refer to Elite Traveler's log-rolling promotional articles and press releases. Nothing encyclopedic here. --Lockley (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2017 (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.