Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside Bozeman Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A bombastic article about a non-notable free quarterly tourism magazine alleged to be "professional and reliable" and "valuable to locals, as well as tourists, as Montana becomes a true skiing destination." The "national attention" claimed for the magazine consists of half a sentence at the end of a Washington Post article about an unrelated topic, and from the citation provided, "state-wide recognition by local and national organizations" apparently amounts to this brief blog post. Fails WP:CORP; WP:NBOOK does not strictly apply but would not help either. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Update: The article has now been rewritten in a significantly more encyclopedic tone. According to this comment on my talkpage, the original version was by the magazine's intern, and after it was put up for deletion someone else stepped in. He promises better sources, but I still don't see them. The best on offer now is this blog rumination, which reads halfway like a joke with lines like, "We send ritualistic text messages once every season:  ' Dude, I grabbed you the new Outside Bozeman! ' ". I continue to support deletion of the article.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the sources currently in the article discuss the magazine in a significant fashion. I can not find any sources that do discuss the magazine.  Notability is not established.   GB fan  talk 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources mentioned in the article are mostly not reliable, and those that are do not discuss the magazine (and only give it a passing mention, while some don't mention it at all). A cursory web search reveals no significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which does not fulfill WP:N. Any information added would fail WP:V. Recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina  20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only non-notable, but from what Glenfarclas says, the article was written by the staff of the magazine - clearly a WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (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.