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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Mag (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)

I could not find anything that could be considered significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Several mentions in newspapers and magazines and some coverage of their fashion week events. Also some book coverage. Some evidence of influence. Is it enough? I lean Weak Keep given its history and the coverage I found. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an in-house publication of Mao Public Relations, the purpose of which is to promote the firm. The article exists for promotional purposes with language such as:

• "Acknowledging the importance of the underground world of fashion while focusing parallel attention on what is “in” today is what makes the magazine stand out"! Etc.

No sources listed; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Good faith source turns up no reliable, in-depth sources. Claim of being "a standing token of New York Fashion Week" is very much unsubstantiated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2018 (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.