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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Digger (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article article fails WP:N. It was previously deleted as American Digger Magazine. The article was created by the webmaster of the magazine. It was previously prod'd but it was removed by a new user with no explanation. This was discussed on the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#.E2.80.8EUser:Pattysuesmith Smartse (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well established newspapers and magazines are fairly notable. It's sometimes difficult to find a lot of substantial coverage, but this story [1] and this one [2] provide a good basis for verifiability and notability for magazine that was started in 2005. I think it's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see how those sources count as "Significant coverage" of the magazine - neither mentions the magazine directly. The first mentions it in passing and as far as I can tell the 2nd doesn't even mention it. For all we know this magazine may only be read by 100 people which doesn't make it notable in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore "a current circulation of over 2000" further evidence of a lack of notability in my opinion.Smartse (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: It seems well established but fails notability. South Bay (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As South Bays says, "fails notability". "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This isn't met by this magazine. I tried to find additional sources and could only find those already in the article. Fences and windows (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per ChildOfMidnight. Only a weak keep because the article may need more work done to it to be good enough for Wikipedia standards. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:03, 21 May 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.