Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOD Magazine (2nd nomination)

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The result was early close and keep, AfD withdrawn by nominator after evidence provided that WP:CORP criteria are clearly being met. -- The Anome (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD Magazine[edit]

No independent evidence of notability supplied. Only external links are to magazine's own website and YouTube channel. Was previously deleted after first AfD: has anything changed in the intervening time to make it meet the notability criteria? -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well part of the reason the last AfD resulted in a deletion was because the magazine had only just rolled out (nearly 2 years ago). It's possible that things have changed, but I'm not seeing much notability. There are some mentions in the blogosphere, but even those appear cursory at best. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I may be partisan, as an employee of the company. We are a magazine with almost 50,000 subscribers, hundreds of thousands of visitors to our website, and we've given nearly $1 million to charity. We were the first outside company to curate the homepage of YouTube. We have been written about in Foreign Policy , Boing Boing The New York Times numerous times (among many other places in print and online). This last year, we were nominated for two National Magazine Awards. I'm not sure what other threshold of notability we could possibly have to meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.106.34 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Magazine Awards are a reasonably big deal, and it (and its articles and business structure) have been the subject of non trivial coverage in respected third party sources. It definitely passes WP:N and WP:CORP. We do need to work all those great sources into the article, though. Vickser (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vickser makes good arguments, unfortunately the article does not provide this valuable information. Since the vote is based upon the article, I must vote no, but if editors were split, I could give it 2 more weeks. GaryECampbell (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:AfD tells us "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." That said, I'm going to go ahead and try to do some clean up on the article. It's not too bad as is, but with all the other sources out there it can be much better. Vickser (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does actually provide information about the National Magazine Award 2008 nomination. And also provides a link to non-trivial, published LA Times coverage of the business and its founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.120.34 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've substantially expanded the article. I'd encourage you to head over and check out the new reference section. 2 NYT articles, 3 NPR pieces, one WashPost, one Foreign Policy, NMA awards, and the LATimes piece. Plenty of coverage. Vickser (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Vickser's comment posted on User talk:The Anome: "I've found a bunch more sources about Good magazine and was wondering if you'd consider taking a look at the new article and seeing if you still feel it should be deleted. Among the highlights are three NPR pieces [1] [2] [3], two New York Times stories [4] [5], an article in Inc. Magazine [6], a Foreign Policy Magazine feature [7] and a short piece in the Washington Post [8]. That's on top of the original Los Angeles Times piece [9] and two National Magazine Awards [10]. If that's enough to persuade you, or you just want to comment and say why you think it still need to be deleted, the afd is here. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
- The above is sufficient to convince me that the article's subject now meets the WP:CORP criteria; accordingly, I'm withdrawing my nomination, and closing this AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (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.