Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Life

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I !vote delete, as this magazine does not meet WP:NMAG or WP:GNG. The current references do not lead anywhere, and archive.org doesn't have copies. Searches on Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam and the SCMP website did not turn up any substantive discussion of the magazine. /wia /tlk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete nothing is nothing. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, the 3 references are especially bizarre leading to the same one page website which doesn't even discuss the magazine. Have been unable to find anything that makes it notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2015 (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.