Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Magazine (New York City)


 * 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. Onetwo three... 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Next Magazine (New York City)

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

Procedural nomination: this was prodded with the reason "Advertisement: no links to third-party citations, only references listed are links to the publication website, "sources" are links to publication media kit" I'm sending it here for community opinions because the publication seems probably important, & the name makes searching very inconclusive. Myself, I'm not sure. DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Distributing 50,000 copies is a claim to notability, but the ref quoted is its own website, and it doesn't even say it there. Searching is difficult due to the name, but I couldn't find anything of note. Would be willing to reconsider if third party reliable sources can be found about the magazine. Quantpole (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Searching for ("Next Magazine" + gay) or ("Next Magazine" + gay + "New York") is making the search easier but may be screening out some stuff. I don't see any in-depth coverage, there are plenty of mentions in quasi-reliable sources such as the Village Voice.  As far as the size and scope of the magazine, the article claims: "Next Magazine prints approximately 50,000 copies and has over 300 distribution points in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Long Island, and New Jersey." but I can't find a reliable source to confirm that either. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This weekly magazine has been a long-time staple of the LGBT community in New York City, and even Frommer’s knows about it .  A Google News search turns up more than a few articles, too: . Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This piece appears to be advertising. The only sources cited are references to the publication's internet site that encourage people to advertise in the publication, and per Wikipedia rules it should be deleted for that reason. Just being a commercial entity or mentioned by a travel publication is not justification in and of itself to be encyclopedic. FuturePresent (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Paster Theo. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think that many famous people would be on the cover, if it didn't have at significant circulation.  D r e a m Focus  09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Concerns for article tone can be addressed through WP:CLEANUP. It being a publication with an editorial staff for research and fact-checking, allows that the article might be kept and fixed. Needs sources? Just a matter of digging over time. Reads like advert? Just a matter of proper cleanup. A presumption of notability exists.  And it is a rare article that springs into existance already perfect. Wikipedia allows that over time that articles be allowed to improve. Edge Miami writes of Next, as does Edge New York. Their articles are being quoted Broadway World. Naturally problems in searches arrise because there are a few other magazines with this same name (like one in Chia), but even with its market demographic being a bit specialized, I think we have a reasonable presumption that more soures will be brought forward as the article grows.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If that's the case then the bulk of the article should be deleted. The main header should be kept but the remainder of the article (which is just direct quotes from the marketing materials encouraging people to advertise with unsubstantiated claims) should be deleted until third parties are able to add sources and verify data. Wikipedia should not be used as a corporate website nor should it be advertising. FuturePresent (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. WP:CLEANUP should properly address any sense of advert.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 17 May 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.