Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crème de la Crème


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crème de la Crème

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Limited distribution Australian tourist magazine. 2 extant references don't mention it. Clearly not a notable publication. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

This magazine has an audited (by the Circulation Audit Bureau) circulation of over 13,000 copies, and within its genre is the most notable in Australia. The references within the article are outbound, not inbound. An annual publication, readership per copy is unusually high - over 200 per copy - putting readership overall in excess of 2 million. The entry's copy probably needs to be updated in line with editorial and distribution changes currently in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicboyde (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) As for its notability - this a subjective matter, and as the magazine's publisher, I am not a third party. Nevertheless, the copy is deliberately understated and hyperbole-free, restricting itself to verifiable facts about the magazine for those interested in such matters. Compared with other magazines in Australia, Crème de la Crème is larger than some and smaller than many; it is printed to a higher standard than almost anything else around; Our articles are regularly ranked highly by google within their subject matter; the articles are regularly read and re-read online; but it deliberately isn't controversial, and doesn't attract attention from the rest of the media. It isn't famous, but I do think it is notable, within the meaning of the word as Wikipedia uses it.

Over to someone else now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicboyde (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - it is always a risk editing about a subject with which you are closely concerned. It can be difficult to remain unbiased. That said, it seems to me that this magazine should be able to demonstrate notability. However, it does not do this. WP:NMAG is the relevant guideline for magazines. Does this magazine have an ISSN? Does it have paid circulation in the tens of thousands? Is it regularly cited by reliable secondary sources (sort of an inverse of the WP:GNG)? Can it be demonstrated to be influential? If yes, then it is notable and can be kept if the article is suitably cleaned up. I think we need more information. Otherwise a weak delete. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment again - Hang on, are you saying that Tourism Victoria cites Creme de la Creme for various statistics? If that can be demonstrated, that's a very strong argument that this magazine is notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Comment No, the data supporting the readership analysis came from Tourism Victoria, amongst others. I have perhaps misused the term "reference". I used it as I would writing an academic paper: "go here for further detail". I've looked at the WP:NMAG guidelines and the magazine in question qualifies on at least one ground (not within the copy, so how would you know): it has been commercially-published for 15 years. Yes, it needs re-writing. I'm on it. Nicboyde
 * Is it possible to provide any examples of well-known publications citing Creme de la Creme?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2 city ‽ 20:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NMAG is still a draft proposal and has not been officially adopted. The relevant existing guideline is WP:GNG; I don't see any more specific guideline that would apply. --Darkwind (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Administrative Comment: I find it difficult to parse these comments to make a definitive close, and therefore I'm relisting it for a second (and final) week. Anybody want to weigh in besides the second-choice weak delete so we can determine consensus? Valley2 city ‽ 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources that so much as mention this magazine. There should be no prejudice to recreating the article in future if proper sources are provided. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - A limited ciruclation giveaway magazine for high-end hotels in Austraila. I find no reliable sources writing about this magazine although the name does make it difficult to sort through search results. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (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.