Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface (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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surface (magazine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Randykitty as SPAM. Much to my surprise two brand new users removed the template (User:DesignGeek2016 and User:100.37.4.248. But I agree with the SPAM-verdict, so I nominated it now by the slow process. The Banner talk 14:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Randykitty as SPAM. I noticed that the original article (prior to recent edits) was much more spammy and not well cited. It was flagged as a potential "advertisement" as well. Original content and notices were outdated. I believe that this page is currently written from a NPOV, but I'm willing to learn how to make it such. talk 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one has some more notable coverage than the page for the covers alone: Surface Magazine Covers. It requires heavy clean-up, but it does seem to have some coverage. However, the citations are really messy and hard to parse, because someone has pasted the same news multiple times under a different address. Capitalnewyork.com is the same as politico.com, for example. And that capitalnewyork.com is there twice. I think I'll try to clean this up a bit. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a second look and found some more coverage atop the ones already in the article. I also found countless mentions of the magazine in articles by other magazines/newspapers, but these articles didn't really focus on Surface, so I couldn't use them as coverage. Also cleaned up a little. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing page is substantive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary coverage about the publication from SFGate, Politico, NY Observer, NY Post, WWD satisfies me. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (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.