Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Server 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. Per lack of evidence of notability, as said here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time Server Magazine

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

No evidence that it passes WP:NMAG, no sources. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 17:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is perfect and accurate. It is difficult to find sources for such a magazine when it is internally produced by a state agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.64.8 (talk • contribs)

Comment: That's a perfect description of "not notable".... --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had commented sooner because the 1 Keep vote goes against everything of what Wikipedia actuslly is; their claims alone are not what's saving this article, because, frankly there is nothing for substance here. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sounds like a wonderful inmate/prison project - at a single prison. But my searched find ZERO notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2016 (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.