Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ON Magazine

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ON Magazine

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

no indication of magazines notability given. only link is to website, no google hits of substance found. Whoops, even worse, the weblink is broken, and the "outnow" name is connected to another mag in the south. seems defunct. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Content looks like 100% a self-description. Even the one external link (their website) is dead. Migh make a good 2 sentence entry in another article if sourcing were found. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on subsequent improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect at least. No need to delete when we have List of LGBT periodicals. I'll have a look to see if some sources can be found but there is no reason to delete this information outright when we have a perfectly good list article it can be redirected to if GNG cannot be immediately met. Insomesia (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect at least, agree with good suggestion by Insomesia (talk · contribs) that List of LGBT periodicals would be a good redirect option. — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (See my below change to just Keep at bottom). — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current revision is crap - but looking through the edit history - there is something there. WP exists to document things such as this. Deletion is used for articles that never should have been written. This is not such a case. - Davodd (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw No references. Attempts to find secondary sources have come up empty, but admit there may be some I missed and open to change if new references are found. Not every magazine published is automatically a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. They have to show notability which is done through WP:NMAGAZINE ie. secondary reliable sources that talk about the magazine. Magazines are notoriously difficult to meet notability, the rules do not favor them, so I would support even small evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as second choice, redirect Did the usual searches plus tried to get Highbeam to give me some help--I've managed sources for one or two magazines in AfDs before there, it does have a few sources that sometimes review advertising venues such as magazines -- but here I came up completely empty. I don't have a real problem with a redirect, but I would have listed that as the first option instead of the second if I'd seen a single secondary source mention it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm working on sourcing, the magazine has been refereed to under a few names (some by accident). Also the publisher has moved yet continues in the news business so that may be worth mentioning. Some of the sources are pay only so i may need assistance accessing those. I do think enough sources exist including reports on the closure of the only LGBT publication in the south bay of SF Bay area, a prominent LGBT mecca. Insomesia (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article rewritten. There are many more sources available however some are only available if paid for and many are buried within thousands of false-positive hits because the name - variously rendered as Out Now, ON, OutNow, and On magazine - is identical to that used to promote the latest issues of many magazines. I think I have added enough to meet GNG but I can find more if needed. Insomesia (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Insomesia's re-write, it shows the magazine has been written-about multiple times in reliable sources with significant coverage, per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed from above to just Keep, per quality improvement efforts done recently as mentioned, above. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to Insomesia for the improvements. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw my afd nomination. god thats hard work finding refs for a mag with this name. might as well call a magazine "set", or "a", or "coming soon" (no double entrendre intended). anyway, job done, it appears notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like it was substantially improved. Great job all around, another AFD success story! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 13 December 2012 (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.