Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Hoop

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Hoop

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

The multiple issues tag explains what this article lacks, and there has been no improvement. No one has come up with any reliable references, so I believe time should be called on the article. The originator has not edited WP for some years. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There aren't a real shortage of references to this magazine, but not a lot (searchable online, anyway) about this magazine. Material like this is almost certainly not "substantial" coverage. It wouldn't take much evidence of notability from dead-tree, likely specialist, literature for me to be convinced otherwise regarding deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything about the magazine in reliable mainstream publications. Fails WP:GNG.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 19 May 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.