Deletion of In Unison

Comment: if notoriety counts as notability, this article passes . However, I agree it needs more sources. I am also concerned that "Underscore b" may be a single-purpose sockpuppet, as the In Unison subject is the only one in which he has participated and he is suspiciously competent at using Wikipedia's system (creating articles as well-written as that, contesting its deletion): I certainly wasn't that competent myself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|The fact that supposedly similar articles exist is not a valid rationale for keeping an article. Besides, both of the other magazines you cited have been in existence for a very long time, which in itself makes them notable. (I did tag both articles as lacking sufficient references, though, and thanks to you for bringing that to my attention). If ''In Unison'' had been around a bit longer and had more recognition by other |reliable sources, it might clear the bar of |notability, but not yet. You envision this article as "an ongoing chronicle of the magazine," but that role should fall to the magazine itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Don't see any instance of |reliable, independent sources taking note of this student publication among the 500 or so GHits for Unitec "In Unison" http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-TW&q=%22in+unison%22+%22unitec%22&lr=. Doesn't seem to have much notoriety over the racism incident; Google search for "An Auckland Story" gives only 5 hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-TW&q=%22an+auckland+story%22&lr= The Chinese article cited is just a trivial mention, as I stated in my reply to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)