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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Owen× 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITPro Today (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)

Article about a defunct magazine/website, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for magazines or websites. As usual, publications regardless of platform are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on the depth of third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced solely to the publication's own self-published content about itself with absolutely no third-party sourcing shown at all, and has been flagged for that problem since 2013 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2024 (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.
No tags for this post.