Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gath (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 speedy keep. as suggested.  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Gath (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable independent sources showing notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The nomination says that there are "no reliable independent sources", but does not explain how WP:BEFORE D1 was performed. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. A targeted Google search would have been sufficient to establish notability. In any event, I've listed plenty of sources on the page. Alázhlis (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that this is a real magazine. The article doesn't make it clear whether this was one issue, several, or published continuously since 2003. A look at the library catalog seems to indicate continuous publication since 2003. If so, that would be a keep for me. I'd like to see an article with more details, such as themes, notable writers and photographers who have contributed, readership/distribution numbers. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added more information to the article. As you can see, a number of notable authors did publish in the magazine and it was a continuing publication. Alázhlis (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Every aspect of the nomination is entirely unsatisfactory. Thincat (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that the nominator has been blocked as a "sockpuppet" five minutes before this article was nominated for deletion.  Not sure how this affects this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
 * As I'm seeing it the block was 55 minutes after the nomination, and it was the first block, and not as a puppet. However, I'd suggest this be closed as Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK as "no argument for deletion".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Second the motion for Speedy Keep if I'm allowed to do so. Thanks for the support! Alázhlis (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2017 (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.