129:- they have had 4 issues so far, which is not a lot of issues. Whilst I don't know the rules for number of subscribers, I imagine it is probably similar to the magical 5,000 number for forum members - hence 300 is somewhat too few. With only 4 issues so far, it is too new to have established significant notoriety. I could find
115:
Significant readership has been established. I should ask that you google the magazine and see what turns up: It is linked to by leading print and internet magazines. It is reviewed and rated and appears in most major literary magazine listing sites. Do you still go so far to say that the magazine is
75:
A 'magazine that has not been published?' If it is a magazine then it goes without saying that it has been published. It is a non-profit corporation with a significant readership and a print version for sale. You jump the gun, sir. I would urge you to do your research.
116:
not notable? By what standards? Indeed, would you argue that the contributors themselves, prominent and emerging artists in their fields, are non-notable. Please explain yourself, as opposed to casting a throw-away vote.--
86:
I retract the statement that it has not been published. However, I still assert that it is not notable - unless you can demonstrate your statment regarding significant readership. --
97:
Red China
Magazine currently has over 300 subscribers. It's online version receives between 200 and 900 hits a day, and receives hits in the tens of thousands per month. --
130:
17:
137:. Since it is an "online magazine", Alexa probably does apply. I am sorry, but it has no claims to notoriety, beyond existing.
133:
on the magazine. Whilst Alexa might not directly apply in this case (as it is a magazine rather than just a web site),
186:
36:
171:
155:
120:
110:
101:
90:
80:
70:
54:
185:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
145:
98:
60:
52:
117:
134:
77:
141:
87:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
49:
164:
138:
168:
151:
148:
107:
179:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
66:
An article on a magazine that has not been published. Vanity.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
189:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
106:Delete. non-notable magazine.
1:
172:23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
156:13:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
121:23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
111:01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
102:23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
91:00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
81:00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
71:23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
55:18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
206:
135:Alexa doesn't recognise it
182:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
131:no google news articles
61:Red China Magazine
154:
197:
184:
144:
34:
205:
204:
200:
199:
198:
196:
195:
194:
193:
187:deletion review
180:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
203:
201:
192:
191:
175:
174:
158:
96:
94:
93:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
202:
190:
188:
183:
177:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
159:
157:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
113:
112:
109:
104:
103:
100:
99:68.161.132.86
92:
89:
85:
84:
83:
82:
79:
73:
72:
69:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
181:
178:
163:exactly per
160:
126:
118:68.161.99.74
114:
105:
95:
88:Hurricane111
74:
68:Hurricane111
65:
45:
43:
31:
28:
152:Eventualist
149:Darwikinian
146:Wishy Washy
165:Zordrac
139:Zordrac
169:feydey
161:Delete
142:(talk)
127:Delete
108:Stifle
78:Jon500
46:DELETE
16:<
167:. -
50:Doc
48:. -
76:--
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.