Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zink 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Zink magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced since 2006. No suggestion of notability. No proof of circulation that *might* have given some niche notability. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it's mentioned a lot in online publications, blogs, etc, but I can't find much in the more notable fashion press (Vogue, WWD, Elle, etc) or in newspapers. As a magazine that's been running for more than 10 years, I think somebody with a better idea of where to look might be able to find something, although I'm a little concerned that I can't get more info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources since the article was created 5 years ago. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep 45 hits for "Zink Magazine" in a Google News Archive search, although not much from the fashion press. To be honest, this article isn't of particular interest to me, but I don't really see why it should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, although somewhat weakly, based on two sources--one a paywalled (via Highbeam) article that provides approximately six short paragraphs of coverage of the magazine, starting from its new headquarters but discussing circulation figures, newsstand penetration and staff size, the second a Dutch article at NU.nl discussing Zink in the context of it's editorials against overphotoshopping of fashion models. I have added links to both sources to the article. --joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (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.