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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cats and Kittens (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)

After searching, this topic about a magazine does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As such it appears to fail WP:GNG. Also, see the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media), which provides some additional opinion about the notability of media on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and even WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article about a non-notable magazine that no longer accepts subscriptions. Genius. WP:GNG and WP:ORG fail. §FreeRangeFrog 22:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randykitty. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2012 (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.