Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stack 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. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stack magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: A somewhat not very notable magazine with a "distribution" of 800,000 and a "claimed readership" of 5,000,000 athletics. Kind of contradicting, if you think about it. Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the contradiction. Magazines get passed around and shared, and that's without the ones in waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. That claimed readership is entirely plausible, assuming the distribution is correct. By the way, why did you put apostrophes around distribution. There's nothing wrong with a distribution of 800000 copies. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gSearch of the phrase Stack Magazine Athletics showed that some of the schools named in their annual Top 50 gave attribution to the magazine. If Notre Dame and Florida State think the magazine in noteworthy enough to point out their placement on the list I think that should confer some. As for the contradiction of circulation and readership numbers, remember, if 10 people read each distributed magazine, you have a readership of 6 million. You can argue how many people actually read each one, but it isn't implausible that readership isn't 5 million. Vulture19 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam Sourced to press releases from the company. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That is the reference in there. Before it is deletable, you also need to know there is no alternative. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – further information added since the original AfD demonstrates that this publication is far from being "somewhat not very notable". Third party sources cited include a public library and an independent review in another magazine, indicating notability. If the article has deficiencies, let's work on them together. As for the assertion of contradiction between the circulation and readership figures, "Dave" is making assumptions about the number of people who can read a particular copy of a magazine; his assumption may apply to magazines that are bought (and owned), but the situation with free publications accessible through schools and libraries is different. -- Hebrides (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulture19. Nay problems with this article can easily be sorted out.RadManCF (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would clearly benefit from improved sourcing, but there's enough to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WARNING: Some of the sources being cited are essentially press releases provided by Stack magazine, which is no better than a primary source to some degree, but the remainder of the sources/text do take a fair crack at establishing notability so I feel comfortable erring on the side of keep in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although currently a poor article, there is enough potential to warrant keeping the article around. If can be AFDed later if it remains in this dismal form. Dethlock99 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.