Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman


 * 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 delete. Several of the keep votes are along the same line, and that raises a suspicion of multiple votes through several accounts. The primary argument for keeping has been coverage in some local media, but a more thorough examination of the material, by 74.74.150.139 and Glenfarclas, indicates that the coverage is fairly trivial or insignificant in nature. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside Bozeman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable local specialty magazine. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Implicit keep: Outside Bozeman magazine is definitely notable, for its content (which documents the Bozeman, MT culture; it is quoted and referenced widely and two libraries include it in their special collections departments), its reach (it is published locally but has subscribers around the country), and its influence (it is known, admired, talked about, and influential in outdoor-community and outdoor-industry circles around the U.S., from Salt Lake City, UT to Burlington, VT to Seattle, WA to Santa Fe, NM). I am an English major, outdoor enthusiast, frequent traveler, and avid reader of the magazine, and among those of us "in the know," Outside Bozeman is widely considered one of the very best regional journals in the country. 64.79.40.66 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — 64.79.40.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep due to improvement of sources and per Arxiloxos and Montanabw.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Local specialty magazine, quite small circulation. References do not assert notability. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Week keep, since it does have multiple coverage in other media outlets (actually somewhat unusual for a paper like this one) and so passes WP:GNG (barely), and it does seem to be a legitmately significant publication in its market. I don't think "local" is a valid objection; we do (and should) have articles for local papers. Although I do favor keeping this article, I have to note that an article about this publication was deleted in April 2010; as I (vaguely) recall, that article was written (at least initially) in a more blatantly promotional style than this one, which did not help its case any.  See Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman Magazine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: As notable as dozens of other articles on even more obscure topics. Undoubtably has higher circulation than most peer-reviewed academic journals, for example.   Montanabw (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Implicit keep: I am a Bozeman local and have read "Outside Bozeman," every quarter for years.  This is the magazine that I turn to for tips and tricks for every season's activities.  This magazine is very well-written and I have even gotten several of my friends from out of town hooked, I have to send them every issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonie91 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)  — Vonie91 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Implicit keep: "Outside Bozeman" is the greatest magazine published in the Rocky Mountains. It's almost impossible to find local magazines with as much knowledge and character as O/B. GIVE THEM LIBERTY OR GIVE THEM DEATH! Preferably liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.103.200 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)  — 174.45.103.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * These sources don't seem to hold up. Current refs 1, 2, and 4 (Montana State University Collegian, Moose Radio, and KXLF-TV) run afoul of WP:CORPDEPTH; they're all local.  Current ref 3 (Washington Post)'s relevance to the subject is, sum total, the sentence "Holland was also carrying a copy of Outside Bozeman magazine for a photo at the summit as part of a contest, he said."  Current ref 5 (WolframAlpha) is primary.  Where are the in-depth, regional or national, non-trivial sources that would let us legitimately keep this article?  Delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pretty much the same article as from a year and a half ago, obviously written as part of the magazine's publicity effort and carefully tailored to squeeze every last droplet of "notability" from the relative stones which are the sources here.  And what are those sources?  An "alums done good" writeup in a college paper, a blog post on the website of a local radio station advertising the magazine's $250 contest, a half sentence in the Washington Post, and a three-minute "local interest" interview on a Montana TV station's morning show (which, again, is not really about the magazine but about its contest).  There's really nothing here that can possibly add up to "significant coverage."  If every throwaway interview, day after day, on local TV stations created notability, my grandmother's quilting club would be notable by now.  The keep !votes above run the range from blatant sockery to WP:WAX to an irrelevant remark about its circulation -- last time I checked, didn't they give this thing away for free?  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Implicit keep: The unfounded assumptions and inaccurate assertions above suggest as much of a bias against this page as its proponents may have for it. Notability is not synonymous with a New York Times article. Last time I checked, didn't Wikipedia give away its information for free? Hedgehog21 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Hedgehog21 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Hedgehog21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The magazine has not achieved notability per Wikipedia's standards. Please note, Mr. "Implicit keep", that WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is against Wikipedia rules and can get you banned from Wikipedia altogether. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficiently notable, per Glenfarclas's grandmother's quilting club argument. —S MALL  JIM   00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per wider notability primarily and spammy overtones. RafikiSykes (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2011 (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.