Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$pread


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

$pread

 * -- (View AfD)

This article serves no purpose other than self-promotion for $pread Magazine. I nominate for speedy deletion. It is nothing more than spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo2007 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 January 2007
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete though on the weak side. Ghits didn't turn up much. the only refrences are the single award. myspace (the ultimate reference), and the official homepage. --Tainter 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's silly to delete this article. I just found it while doing research on sex workers. There's not a lot on Wikipedia on the topic and most of it is "up for deletion" because people have political problems with one side of the issue or another. I imagine that's what is going on here. There are many magazines and for-profit entities that are listed in Wikipedia. Why not this one? It won the Utne award, so it must be relevant in the indy scene. It's noteworthy in and of itself that prostitutes are producing it.


 * Keep - nomination doesn't give any genuine policy reason for deletion. You could argue the Washington Post article was a violation of WP:SPAM using this nonsensical argument. The magazine has won an award, which is usually considered good enough. Regarding Tainter's good faith comments, I would comment that google doesn't handle searches involving $ characters particularly well. Addhoc 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The magazine won an award from The Village Voice last year. That, plus the Utne Award, should be enough to confer notability to a relatively new publication. Caknuck 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.