Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inc. 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 of the debate was Speedy keep per evidence of Andrew. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Inc. Magazine
Magazine owned and run by a group of redlinks. Which is not a crime. But here's the interesting bit: I downloaded the advertiser's media pack and there is no circulation figure. Having bought advertising space in the past, that is number one on the list of things an advertiser is likely to want to know. Circulation figures absent, I call vanity. Just zis Guy you know? 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep major well-known magazine. What's with the sudden circulation figures thing? (see also Fast Company AFD) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Circulation: 680,719 monthly, according to this. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's with the circulation figures thing is that circulation is vitally important to a magazine. Which is why I went to the trouble of downloading their media pack, so I could see if this was just garden-variety spam (having found it through the edit history of a vandal). Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, circulation figures are important for a magazine, and every good magazine should include them. But I can't grasp why their absence is somehow a criterion for deletion or suggests vanity for some reason.  3 seconds on Google shows that these are by no means anyone's xeroxed-at-school fanzine... "Fast Company" in quotes brings 6.6 million Google hits. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you know how it is, trailing through the edit history of a vanity spammer and vandal, you can get overwhelmed by skepticism. I spent far longer than 3 seclonds downloading and reading their media packs and other data looking for evidence from them which would establish their notability, it never occurred to em that they might consider themselves so well known that they didn't need to announce circulation, only the number of subscribers to their web forum. Call me evil. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, per everything Starblind says. May, I humbly, with no criticism implied, suggest a Google search on "Inc. Magazine" circulation before the next similar nomination? That gives 663,000 in 1999, 670,000 in 2001, and the last link also answers the Fast Company circulation question, with 600,000 in 2001. AnonEMouse 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, major magazine. Definitely worthy of an article. JohnnyBGood [[Image:I-5.svg|15px]] t c 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, probably the best-known American small business magazine. Anirvan 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Rob 21:20, 16 May 2006 (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.