Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Amsterdam Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article describes a short-lived magazine and its even shorter-lived offshoot. During their brief existence, the only attention received from independent sources (of doubtful reliability - some read like press releases) consists of brief mentions in a marketing magazine and on two local radio/TV stations. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While short-lived, these two magazines are relevant because they were once among the few English language publications in the Amsterdam area. Furthermore, this entry can/should serve as a cautionary tale from what is an incredibly tough publishing market. The coverage/citation come from Dutch radio + TV stations and do meet Wikipedia's policies concerning reputability. Like many articles on this site, the subject matter isn't significant enough to warrant coverage from the New York Times but it is both highly relevant/important to its niche and the city of Amsterdam. Also: an additional citation has been attached to the article since the deletion tag was placed. Albertheineken (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Albertheineken (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, that "additional citation" is a link to YouTube, which is not considered to be a reliable source. As for the coverage in the magazine/radio/TV stations: even if we accept those as independent reliable sources (and not just some re-hashing of a press release), those brief mentions are far from the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh... There are, literally, thousands of articles on Wikipedia with far weaker citations than this one, some without any citations at all. Rather than striving to improve this article by tracking down additional citations yourself, you seem far more interested in nitpicking every existing source to death. I suppose there's just no arguing with you about this article, G. You're bound and determined to see it nixed from the site. It's editors like you that are ruining Wikipedia and making it an incredible drag to write/edit on. Enjoy your little power trip. Albertheineken (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have only been editing on this one subject, I don't think that you are in a position to say much about the general atmosphere here. As for all those other badly sourced articles out there, you're absolutely right: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As the person arguing that this article should be kept, the onus is on you to find good, independent, reliable sources that show notability. I couldn't, but perhaps you can and if you do, I'll be the first to withdraw the nom (or, if that is not possible any more, to !vote keep). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Hee...I'll have to remember that one. There's no arguing that there seems to be a plethora of editors on Wikipedia that spend all of their time policing the place and tearing things down rather than striving to improve them. Ultimately, it makes the site a rather unpleasant place and will only further discourage newbies (and there was all that hubbub recently about women not wanting to come anywhere near the site) but I digress. I still think you're being altogether too harsh with this article and that you're employing the full extent of Wikipedia's rules to have it deleted. Not every subject can, or will, be able to have rock solid citations and the ones included here, at the very least, are legit sources and not personal blogs, for example. But let me approach this debate from another angle. One problem with trying to find citations for a magazine is that they, in general, don't typically draw much attention from other publications for an obvious reason: other publications are their competitors and they're typically reluctant to draw attention to other contenders for their readerships' eyes (unless they have something negative to report). I took a quick glance at the citations over on the Wikipedia article for Wired, the popular tech magazine. They too read like press releases and many of them are blog posts. I'd say that Wikipedia articles about publications should be given a break, given the nature of competition in publishing/media. Albertheineken (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * weak keep Not the strongest sourcing, but notability isn't temporary and while short lived, there was enough impact to get some significant coverage.  Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  01:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG the coverage is not in depth, nor significant. if this was such a notable magazine I think we would find at least a large amount of Dutch coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the citations again. There are five citations from outside sources based in the Netherlands. Albertheineken (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2012 (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.