Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NW (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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

NW (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minimal content about a now defunct magazine. Reference 3 hidden behind paywall. Official webiste now defaults to other content. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - this was a notable magazine in Australia that was in print for 27 years. The closure received notable independent coverage, e.g. this, and there was other significant coverage during the magazine's lifetime, e.g. this. The fact it has stopped circulation and the fact the official website no longer exists are not valid reasons for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deus et lex. I've done some cleanup and added several IRS citations. The page looks good to me and entirely appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is to stay, still needs a lot of improvement. No use keeping links to the Australian as only subscribers can read them. Article is very brief. No mention of long history of shoddy tabloid jounalism such as https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mags/11647506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the article survives depends on the notability of the subject, not how comprehensive the article is. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And any "long history of shoddy journalism" is also not a reason for deletion (but thanks for the extra source!) Deus et lex (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And a source being behind a paywall (or offline for that matter) is no reason it is not appropriate: WP:OFFLINE. Nonetheless, I have added some additional data into The Australian citation should Teraplane wish to access it either via subscription or free public library databases or microfiche :) . Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Very prominent magazine. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Cabrils' improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2020 (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.