Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Money 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 per an apparent WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Young Money magazine

Young Money magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

nn magazine (see WP:NOTABILITY). Quick Google search turned up no independent reviews, but plenty of subscription offers. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable publication with plenty of external references. The Washington Post (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-593491.html), Orlando Sentinel (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8911282_ITM), USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/education/articles/20041107.htm), The Gazette (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=CSGB&d_place=CSGB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F34B92AC3766949&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM) and plenty of others all mention Young Money magazine in their articles. This AfD nom. is poorly informed Stanley011 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - minor publication, references are trivial (one-paragraph quote from the publisher, for example); fails to meet notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - a reference from the Washington Post was added after your last comment that "references are trivial" Stanley011 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Now there is a ref. from USA Today in addition to the Wash. Post. 2 references from major national publications hardly qualifis as "NN." Stanley011 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • explanation - Read our guidelines on notability. Merely being mentioned in passing does not suffice. There must be significant coverage, not a single-paragraph quote from the publisher or a passing mention in an article not about the subject of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable; in addition to those noted above, I've repaired those refs on the page. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Also added the other refs. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2008 (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.