Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagmag


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wagmag

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

Nominating after I mistakenly tagged the article with PROD after a recent PROD nomination was contested. This is an article about a magazine of unclear notability. None of the sources cited even mention "wagmag", let alone discuss the magazine in any detail. Appears to fail WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I got the images from the publisher and did my best to upload them properly to WikiCommons. The publisher is new to Wikipedia and may be making mistakes but that doesn't encourage deletion. The user above has just come in with a broom sweeping up with no attempt to make the article better; I have. It may go not notable but it should not just be deleted. It's gone prod now three times and also to RM and has always been keep. Articles have to start somewhere and it is doing no harm. SimonTrew (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm really confused. First, what image are you talking about/ And what does it have to do with the deletion debate? Second, I'm looking at the edit history and you've either removed or added the template each time, so, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the article going to PROD three times. And it's not like I'm PRODing and AFDing stubs left and right or I'm out to punish some lowly n00bs for not being able to recite each and every WP word for word - this is a subject that I honestly don't think will ever meet WP:N. So yeah, I'm seriously confused by your response. --Mosmof (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the prod template from my understanding of what you are supposed to do with prod templates. I've not removed them prematurely but when they are done. I thought that is what you were supposed to do.


 * Similarly I added them because it seemed the article was going nowhere. However in the last few days I have had reception from the primary author and I think, therefore, it should be given a chance. SimonTrew (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge I don't see how this is independently notable. But maybe it can be merged and mentioned somewhere? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC
 * It probably isn't very notable. I't a local freebie magazine. BUT, I think it should be given a chance to prosper. I would agree with merge if I could think of an article to put it in, is there "New York Free Magazines" or something like that? SimonTrew (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the merge proposal - the magazine and its events get enough mentions in local media to be mentioned (just not enough coverage), I think. But like above editors, I have no earthly idea where it would fit. Mosmof (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Brooklyn would be a good place for a mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge: Although the article itself needs a lot of work, the publication seems to be reputable and stable enough that it could be considered an exception to WP:N. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:13, 19 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.