Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetset (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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jetset (magazine)[edit]
- Jetset (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article created by a blocked spam-only account, advertising their own product. No notability established. Nymf hideliho! 08:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find anything under Google, including searching websites of prominent advertising/media pubs (Ad Week, Brand Republic, Campaign, etc) and newspapers with strong media/business coverage (NY Times, WSJ). Can't find circulation/sales figures either - it doesn't seem to be sold on newsstands, and it's unclear whether it's a free giveaway or anyone buys it at all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. However minor of a magazine and however new to the magazine world it is, it does appear to be notable and legitimate. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- 'Jetsetmagazine.net's three-month global Alexa traffic rank is 110,973. Roughly 43% of visits to the site are bounces (one pageview only).' Not covered by Reliable Sources, all results are 'x featured in Jetset', 'watch photo shoot video', partnerships, & PR releases; fails WP:N as currently defined. Dru of Id (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable spam--Hu12 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable sources covering it. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (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.