Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acoustic Guitar (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acoustic Guitar (magazine)

Acoustic Guitar (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability, only links to its own website, website is mainly google ads, spam Pharmboy 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • keep This mag is in every major US bookstore it has been around since 1990 and won a "Maggie Award as the Best New Consumer Magazine of [that] year."[1] In addition to advertizing, the mag website has contents from back issues, articles on acoustic guitarists of all sorts and things I don't think you could find anywhere else. -MrFizyx 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Further comments
    • there are some indpendent reviews of this mag online though I admit most don't meet my understanding of the the standards in WP:RS (e.g. see [2][3])
    • The mag is cited as a resources or its articles are quoted in numerous publications (e.g. see google books)
    • It is probably the most widely read title by String Letter Publishing. I don't know where to look up independent stats, AG itslef claims 64,000 readers.[4]
    • Their web site is the first hit in google for the generic search on "acousitic guitar" (without quotes!).
    -MrFizyx 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then I am confused why this magazine has Google ads on their own website and, well, LOOKS spammy. Even the article doesn't say much except to link. I would withdraw based on your arguements *if* someone could put some meat on this bone. Pharmboy 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Their webmaster may not have the best of tastes, but the fact that someone uses google ads to help pay the bills is hardly cause for deletion (hasn't amazon.com at times done this?) Nor should things be deleted just for being stubby. In anycase, I've had a go at it and posted a "decent" article. It still leans to heavily on the AG web site as a source, but since I'm not willing to do any more rigorous research perhaps that will do. BTW I like your username, but I was hoping your were a pharmacist or something rather than someone dealing in tanning beds. Regards, -MrFizyx 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAW DELETE REQUEST I was trying to remove my objection while you were posting. Long story short: due to your turning it into a real article and my agreeing with you now, I say we have a consensus to keep the article. As the original person who made the delete request, I would ask an admin to come to the same conclusion. Pharmboy 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think even a non-admin could close this. I agree though that its well and good for process that we leave it to someone else. -MrFizyx 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My thinking too. Even tho I started this, it is now "owned" by everyone. Pharmboy 00:27, 27 July 2007 (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.