Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting Gazette


 * 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. WP:SNOW. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shooting Gazette

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

The tone sounds okay to me, and IPC Media is very notable. Too many ghits to assess notability, and can't db-inc a magazine, so taking to AfD - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I see nothing wrong with this. Field sports may be politically incorrect, but that is no reason for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as nominator hasn't given any reason to delete it. It's a nationally-distributed printed magazine from a reputable publisher that's been going for 20 years so notability is surely not at issue. Article could certainly do with some editing for NPOV, but it's only 2 days old so I see no reason to bring it to AFD. Qwfp (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable magazine and I can't see any reason to delete / speedy / AfD it other than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT on shooting or field sports. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep no reason given to delete (tone being OK and inability to assess notability are not reasons to delete AFAIK) and the number of hits indicates the subject is notable. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to meet the general notability guideline. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator gave no valid policy-based reason to delete this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Dank55 was nominating on behalf of, looking at the article's history. It appears ukexpat put a speedy deletion tag on it and Dank5 declined speedy deletion on the grounds he cited above. Therefore, speedy keep per WP:SK ground 1: the nominator doesn't think the article should be deleted.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:28, 27 March 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.