Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMARGE


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

DMARGE

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Website lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This AfD makes no sense. SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject meets GNG, it is not itself a requirement for GNG.
 * The publication has syndicated pieces to "The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, finance magazine, Stockhead and tech magazine, Gizmodo" the references establishing that fact are reliable. Therefore notable on the basis of this being a well-syndicated Australian publication. Jack4576 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . As far as I'm aware, WP:GNG does require SIGCOV. Which policy makes you think that it doesn't? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the way that it’s worded. I’ve opened an RfC regarding this issue Jack4576 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Do you mean this one Wikipedia_talk:Notability? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NMAG Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WEBCRIT, there needs to be at least "multiple non-trivial published works" about the subject for notability to be determined. I.e., sources other than the ROUTINE, common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out, non-SIGCOV sources already included in the article. Could you please provide a non-trivial source? I'll !vote to keep if I see a source that passes this criterion. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 00:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that this article's sourcing is in terrible condition. Comments like "SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject meets GNG, it is not itself a requirement for GNG" and "meets our guidelines for inclusion WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NMAG" aren't going to cut it. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete or Draftify. There is a huge issue with the reliable sources requirements. BoraVoro (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Source assessment below:
 * 1. The article by Mumbrella titled Dmarge study shows what brands need to know about men’s mental health lacks any focus on DMARGE, instead focusing on a study conducted by that magazine.
 * 2. The Australian Financial Review article contains very trivial coverage of DMARGE, meaning it lacks SIGCOV. It's also not independent because of the interview quote:
 * 3. This Mumbrella source is about "The Collective" magazine's coverage of "local Aussie talent", and contains a single paragraph on DMARGE which lacks SIGCOV and consists of quotes:
 * 4. The Campaign Asia source doesn't mention DMARGE once.
 * 5. This Australian Financial Review source focuses on DMARGE's founder Luc Wiesman and very minimally covers the magazine.
 * 6. This Collective Hub source focuses on DMARGE's founder and not on the magazine.
 * 7. This source contains the Mumbrella Publish Award winners and lacks SIGCOV.
 * 8. This other Mumbrella source describes the magazine's rebrand and is WP:ROUTINE coverage, with coverage such as "The rebrand represents DMARGE’s unique and honest approach to a range of men’s interests; it’s a bold logo that works across all mediums and applications" and "DMARGE’s print magazine, Shut Up & Take My Money will launch its fourth edition in November" -- no significant, in-depth coverage.
 * 9. More routine coverage that describes the magazine's launch of a "Chinese Australian Platform to Help Luxury Brands Bridge Tourism Gap", and lacks any WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * 10. Same as the article above.
 * 11. This source, titled "Dmarge launches e-commerce platform The Dmarge Shop" is also routine in coverage.
 * 12. This article by The Age doesn't cover DMARGE, but was "first published on d'marge.com".
 * 13. This source, titled "Bloomin' heck! Floral prints are next for men was also "originally published on D'Marge".
 * 14. This is a list of articles published by James Booth, who apparently works at DMARGE; no source here that focuses on DMARGE.
 * 15. This also contains a few article published by DMARGE, but nothing that focuses on DMARGE itself.
 * 16. This source, titled "Dmarge partners with Executive Traveller & The Roar to target Aussie men is 100% routine coverage of the magazine that consists mostly of quotes, making it non-independent.
 * 17. The coverage of DMARGE in this source is simply "Shut Up & Take My Money, D’Marge", one of multiple winners of Mumbrella's "Best Launch/Relaunch of the Year – Small Publisher." This lacks SIGCOV.
 * 18. Targeted Media Services mentions that DMARGE was awarded the "Publishing Company of the Year – Small and Branded Content Studio of the Year" but contains no information on the company itself.
 * — Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to all this, I want to address WP:NMAG and WP:WEBCRIT:
 * This magazine fails all four of WP:NMAG's #Criteria. It doesn't pass the first criterion, which states "The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education" -- this magazine barely has enough sources that care to mention it, and insignificantly so. It doesn't pass the second criterion either, which states that it could be notable if it "received a notable award or honor at a national or international level" -- the only awards it's received are from Mumbrella, which are by no means notable.
 * This magazine fails WP:WEBCRIT. According to WEBCRIT, the magazine needs to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". None of the sources are non-trivial, and the rest are routine coverage of normal events (as I have shown in my source analysis above). WEBCRIT also states that the magazine could be notable if it "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." None of the sources listed in #Awards and recognition are "well known" or "notable." — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This magazine fails all four of WP:NMAG's #Criteria. It doesn't pass the first criterion, which states "The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education" -- this magazine barely has enough sources that care to mention it, and insignificantly so. It doesn't pass the second criterion either, which states that it could be notable if it "received a notable award or honor at a national or international level" -- the only awards it's received are from Mumbrella, which are by no means notable.
 * This magazine fails WP:WEBCRIT. According to WEBCRIT, the magazine needs to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". None of the sources are non-trivial, and the rest are routine coverage of normal events (as I have shown in my source analysis above). WEBCRIT also states that the magazine could be notable if it "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." None of the sources listed in #Awards and recognition are "well known" or "notable." — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:16, 1 June 2023 (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.