Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Sailing 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian Sailing magazine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was created by the article's publisher (the subtly named User:YaffaPublishing who has since started the new account User:Zizyphus) who has removed two prod deletion templates. There are no indications of notability, and the publisher account states that references to demonstrate notability are probably not available (see: ). The article was created as part of an apparent publicity campaign, with the publisher stating that they intended to create articles on all the magazines they publish (see: ). As there is no evidence of notability and the article was created for promotional purposes it should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Keep It seems to me that the author has realised the error of his/her ways, see. The magazine is the only title in Australia on the subject which implies notability. The article is not overly promotional. Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it has some reliable sources (and there are probably more to be had). The "notable" contributors should all have their own Wikipedia articles, if they are truly notable. Otherwise, they are just "contributors". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Clearly notable magazine. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (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.