Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airliners (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airliners (magazine)

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

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context Russavia 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't formed an opinion yet, but if this article is deleted, then Image:Airliners novdec04.jpg should be deleted as well. -- Hawaiian717 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although the publication may not be of general interest, it is notable as a longstanding (nearly 20 years, 100 issues) magazine that has circulation within the airline industry. As an alternative, this information should be merged into an article that incorporates the news and business magazines (this one and Airline Weekly are two examples) that are aimed at the narrow community of people in airline management. Mandsford 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike Airline Weekly, this is a real magazine with a listing in OCLC and Ulrich's and an ISSN. that alone isn't enough, but according to Ulrich's, the standard independent 3rd party RS, it has a paid circulation of 45,000. That is high enough for notability of such a specialized publication. DGG (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The magazine exists. It is of importance in the airline management and airline enthusiasts world. Therefore an article in WP is needed - Adrian Pingstone 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG, but a merge could work too. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The circulation figures, built up over several decades, suggest a fair amount of notability alone. Burntsauce 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This magazine is not aimed towards airline management, it is not used by airline management, although it is aimed squarely at the airline enthusiast/spotter, and 45,000 worldwide circulation really is not all that much, is it? Still, non-trivial sources are still sorely lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 September 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.