Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt Lake Metro


 * 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. After a double re-listed and nearing the end of the third time frame, the general consensus remains falls to keep. While limited reliable sources are available, the editors involved feel they warrant a keep outcome. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Salt Lake Metro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Same as other, a google search of ""Salt Lake Metro" magazine Salt Lake City" reveals no sources. This one is harder to search for, but I couldn't see anyone. Source in article is no longer accessible but I'm not sure it offered anything more than regional/municipal significance of any kind. v/r - TP 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Several source searches in Google News and Google News archive have provided some sources (e.g. see this custom search), but the depth of overall coverage may be borderline to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, per WP:N. Technically, in WP:N, "sources" typically means two or more. Sources found that appear to be about the newspaper itself, as opposed to passing mentions and quotes from newspaper staff, include, , both from the The Salt Lake Tribune. They're both paywalled, which does not disqualify them per WP:PAYWALL, but it would be nice to view the entire articles to better-ascertain their depth of coverage. Additionally, most of the Tribune articles that have mentions are paywalled, so I'm unable to ascertain the depth of coverage in these too. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals‎. There is also no reason to delete when a list article is available. Insomesia (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, and agree with analysis by, at the very least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do either of you want to provide sources? My argument is that the article falls entirely short of WP:V and WP:GNG.  What policy/guideline supports keeping?  If you want to redirect it, I don't really care.  Redirects are cheap.--v/r - TP 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Before could you explain the steps you took before taking this to AfD? Insomesia (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per consensus, WP:Before is not a policy. But since you ask, you can look in my deletion statement: "a google search of ""Salt Lake Metro" magazine Salt Lake City" reveals no sources."  The burden is on those wishing to keep content to provide sources.--v/r - TP 00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. I'm not sure that the two Salt Lake Tribune articles alone are enough to warrant an individual article, but a look at them viaHighbeam shows they indeed contain in-depth coverage on this publication.  Gong   show  23:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It can be difficult to find independent articles with significant coverage about a publication. Here, we have two in-depth articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, both of which I've read on Highbeam, plus an article titled "Paper War: Is Salt Lake City gay enough for two biweekly gay newspapers?" in the Salt Lake City Weekly. Unfortunately, this third article is not available online, but the title makes it clear that the Salt Lake Metro was one of the two publications receiving significant coverage. I see no good reason to delete the article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen, the two articles in Highbeam are both within a month of this publication's launch. The first one certainly is trivial.  The second one is a bit more significant, but I wonder if the fact that it was right after the launch lent some attention.--v/r - TP 04:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the coverage as significant, and more than trivial. Other opinions may vary.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant the first one is routine, not trivial.--v/r - TP 16:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Cullen328's analysis and with xis opinion that the coverage is sufficiently substantive to show notability. ---Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2013 (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.