Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scope (alternative weekly)

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 keep , technically speedily, though without any haste. No votes to delete, and nominator does not appear to have standing. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scope (alternative weekly)

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--User19004 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep there was coverage on national television channel about its closure cbc ref which meets WP media. However over refs are weak or lost.User talk:Davidstewartharvey
Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - article looks okay at first blush. Nominator has been blocked for sock-puppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2020 (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.