Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dealmaker

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 deal, delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealmaker

Dealmaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article, which is unreferenced at present and reads like an ad, was originally speedied under A7/G11. The magazine was launched "this fall", so I question it's notability. The creator, who by his own admission [1] is associated with the magazine and/or company and whose only edits are to this and one other related article [1], maintains that it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for review. I'm indifferent to it myself. -- Steel 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reads like an ad? It reads like a summation of what the magazine is: a 100,000 circulation magazine by a notable publishing company covered in Reuters and the New York Times. Notability, in this case, is purely subjective and I respect your questioning but it cannot be definitive. What, by the way, is your definition of reads like an ad? I am not attempting to coax someone to read this magazine. I am just providing circulation and subject matter information for this particular magazine to anyone who is of interest in the magazine. It is true there is no sourcing concerning the press coverage and the notability of the magazine, but if that is the problem the article should not have been deleted, just asked to be sourced more thoroughly. Sabadu 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It reads like advertising/press release copy to me Bwithh 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Dealmaker does not have 100K circulation; according to the article, it has about 50K. The 100K circulation number in the article is for a different magazine. --Brianyoumans 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google news turns up this[2] from the NYT. quote:

Advertisers and journalists made up most of the crowd. Many of the financial professionals that did make an appearance were featured in Dealmaker’s “Top 30 Rainmakers” list

This article is painfully inaccurate; this and Trader Monthly are the sort of standard freebie[3] trade magazines that anybody who works in an office is likely to find themselves "subscribed" to, but they do seem to give out enough quality free food to get regular coverage from the real press. I'm not sure where that sits them on the notability scale. BCoates 11:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• based on the NYT, speedy keep DGG 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Uh... just because it's in the NYT or on the NYT website, doesn't make it automatically encyclopedically notable Bwithh 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article comes across like corporate spam/PR copy. Article creator's apparent relationship with publication creates a conflict of interest. Encyclopedic notability hasn't been established. All we have are marketing claims made by the launch of a trade magazine. Policy against marketing usage of Wikipedia is tougher now. Bwithh 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Bwithh, the "citations" seem only to confirm that this magazine exists. Most of the meat of the article is still unverified and notability is not established.--Dmz5 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Considering the magazine is probably about 2 issues old, let's wait a bit. A mailed-out-for-free specialty magazine known only for its lavish launch party - and, well, lavish launches aren't that unusual. --Brianyoumans 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Bwithh. The article even mentions what it costs for a subscription. The article has numerous wikipedia links to articles that don't exist (yet) for associated people and companies. --Jay Jenkins 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a standard PR statement, and the article largely asserts what it aspires to be. If it becomes notable, great, there should be an article about it. But no evidence that that notability exists now. -Markeer 05:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, potentially notable but this would be unusual for a new magazine of which hundreds are launched annually. The WP:COI violation seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - corporate vanity. I would speedy but it's been protested some what. MER-C 05:59, 14 December 2006 (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.