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. ✗plicit 14:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro Suryoyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG, search for sources find mostly social media pages that discuss the magazine and others that mention it in passing without much detail (as well as the website for the magazine) Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, its website has a risky .Nu extension. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2025 (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.