Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoneyWeek


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Lack of sources addressed Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MoneyWeek

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

* Delete - Non-notable "investment" magazine (blacklisted on Wikipedia for spam) with no notability established. Attempts to find proper sources only uncover circulation information (~35,000 per week). NJGW (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To aid my interpretation of notability guidelines, can you give a specific example of what might confirm 'notability' for this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dami99 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered at the talk page. NJGW (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this article detailing the magazine's launch? There is also this interview with the then-editor (although admitedly may be more suitable as a source for her own entry page). Dami99 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: proposed in view of sources here, here and editor interview here. Dami99 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are certainly enough sources in the article now to demonstrate notability. I would also invite the nominator to remove the scare quotes from '"investment" magazine' - whatever you think of notability I don't think you can have any doubt that this is an investment (without quotes) magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on references turned up since this AfD began. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I withdraw the nomination based on the interview with the editor. Other refs help, but that one actually asserts some notability per market share and given their notable editor.  NJGW (talk) 07:48, 25 February 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.