Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of Chaos (webzine)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Chaos (webzine)

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

Non-notable web zine, can find no coverage to establish notability in independent sources. This issue has been raised as far back as 2007 on the talk page and there are still no reference to establish notability of the publication. Ridernyc (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition every single edit of substance to this article has been performed by a SPA whose sole purpose is to add spam for this webzine. Only about 50 edits since article was created in 2005 and every single non cleanup or maintenance edit performed by an SPA spam account. Not sure how this is still here. Ridernyc (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – As it stands, the article is overly reliant on sourcing to its own website (which is a reliable source for itself, but does not help with WP:N notability). I was able to add a few more sources however. The 'zine is somewhat notable as one of the first webzines dedicated to extreme metal music, which I've sourced to Billboard. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of the topic that is the subject of the article about the periodical being discussed. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik & Cirt. Argolin (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2013 (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.