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. Courcelles 03:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biophile[edit]

Biophile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a clearly non-notable magazine. The article's tone is much like an advertisement and it has been tagged for references since 2009. There appears to be zero coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability, closer to G11 spam from the Texo/rrrr SPA. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (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.