Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'47


 * 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 after Metropolitan90's rewrite and sourcing. --MCB (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

'47
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not state notability. It says it is a publication owned by hundresds of the best writers and artists of the day yet does not have any sources to back it up. tabor -drop me a line 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the concept of a magazine "owned" by its contributors in the form of stock is fairly unique, and sources aren't hard to find: Washington post, NY Times. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - References mentioned above only seem to be "announcements" of upcoming magazine... long term notability isn't established. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if sources can be found to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:V; redirect to 1947 if they cannot. B.Wind (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Article significantly improved by Metropolitan90 (see post below) with citations from Time magazine. Changing to strong keep. B.Wind (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreferenced and fails to assert what the notability was - uniqueness of ownership may be interesting but what was the significance? Thetrick (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blaxthos, above. Debate   木  09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If it was a notable magazine why did it last only 1 year before being terminated? Secondly, there isn't any sources for it's existence Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral . The magazine may be somewhat notable due to the fact that it had some prominent writers, but the article needs references. In addition, the article needs to be focused on relevant information. This article digresses into such doubtfully relevant topics as the price of prunes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to The Magazine of the Year, the title under which it is indexed in libraries (due to its main title shifting with the year). I have found some sources and added them to the article, and given the article a rewrite to eliminate the less relevant content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2008 (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.