Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ganzfeld

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 - No consensus Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ganzfeld

The article cited an "upcoming" annual issue in 2007 and the magazine's official website is a dead myspace link. While a google search is somewhat challenging due to something called the Ganzfeld Effect/Ganzfeld Phenomenon, there doesn't appear to be anything substantial indicating that it was notable when it existed. Travellingcari (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, virtually no assertation of notability. Doesn't fall into any speedy criteria, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment from the talk page was funny: "Hi im Rich from the band and we really arent that great. Sorry.". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and the best bit... he didn't even leave that on the band's talk page because the band's page is a redlink. A for honesty. Travellingcari (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find it odd that the official site is listed as a myspace page, when there exists an actual url [1]. There seems to be a few 3rd party references (following the google link provided by Travellingcari above). It's apparently an annual mag, so the 2008 isn't available yet. However, the website hasn't been updated, so the mag may be defunct. Some minor notability, based on the reviews alone. freshacconcispeaktome 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Link to the website corrected. Seems notable. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyrenius (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot see evidence that this series of books meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). There is certainly nothing in the article to say that it does. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, reviews here and here. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (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.