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. — Scientizzle 21:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed the second nomination for deletion of this article a month ago as a keep with the weight of a no consensus. It has just been pointed out to me that a couple Keep !voters from the last round have been blocked as sockpuppets. I'm renominating this in the hope of gaining a legitimate consensus, and I'll semi-protect the article to prevent similar disruption. As to the merits of the article, I am neutral. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All arguments that I gave in the previous AfDs still stand. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is no "significant coverage" in third party sources. the only content is local coverage regarding a standard bankruptcy. the potential "claim to fame" of the first airport ap that recieved coverage via the reprint of a press never actually occured because of the closure of the magazine. all in all: theres nothing to see here folks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. I have no idea why anyone would create socks to WP:ADVERT a defunct magazine, but that appears to be what's happened here. Qworty (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two or three of the independent sources appear to be radio programs of some length, in Dutch. No way to translate. How do we check those sources to see if they had significant coverage of the magazine? Are the Deletes above by Dutch speakers? Green Cardamom (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Dutch speaker. As far as I can see, this was in-passing brief coverage on local radio stations. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Breakfast Radio is in English, the show is offline. The radio show host says of the magazine "we can confirm that it's a great read for locals and tourists" which is an independent endorsement by the media. Based on the abstract of the show it looks like the episode was about the magazine.
This radio program on BNR I hear the word "magazine" mentioned throughout the entire episode, sounds like the guest is a representative of the magazine and they are discussing the magazine for the entire episode?

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I found some bylines with "Amsterdam Magazine" in them.[1] The Guardian mentioned Amsterdam Magazine in a news article,The Guardian February 29, 2012 probably as a favor to Amsterdam Magazine writer and The Guardian contributor Arun Sood in an effort to get some additional readers to the Amsterdam Magazine's final issue. That's about all the reliable source info, which doesn't add up to enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:22, 23 September 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.