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. Kurykh (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerama[edit]

Soccerama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Newish magazine. No notability established. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A Google search and GNews search shows it fails to establish notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for Soccerama seems fine and in good order. The publication employs key contributors (leading soccer pundits, award-winning journalists) and has a growing circulation. There are magazines with smaller circulations and smaller editorial budgets whose Wikipedia pages are not up for deletion. Perhaps the Soccerama page might be shorter but the publication in question has a degree of notability and should remain within on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.116.235 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NMAG; lack of independent sources available. The keep vote above is merely saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 13:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - notability has been proven on the grounds that leading soccer pundits and award-winning journalists are among the regular contributors to this publication. Also, Soccerama is approved by the International Sports Press Association and Uefa, the game's European governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any independent sources that justify these claims? Spiderone 09:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be arranged. Would the sources be for public perusal or privately, through this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather they were added to the article directly but if that isn't possible then please link them in this discussion Spiderone 07:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication magazine satisfies any of the four criteria laid down at WP:NMAG. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - the publication has among its regular contributors David Pleat, Clive Toye, and Steve Darby. These pundits/experts would not be involved with the magazine if it not established its notability. If there are problems with sources, let's edit down the article or improve the sourcing. But if this article is deleted because the publication lacks notability, then there are other similar publications that should also have their Wikipedia articles deleted for the same reason. We have to be balanced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.202.251 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other similar magazines that aren't notable with Wikipedia articles then please let us know and we can deal with it. The fact that other similar articles exist isn't a reason for keeping this one. Spiderone 07:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editors, doesn't pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NMAG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 8 April 2017 (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.