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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:14, 24 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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:40, 1 April 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:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSSpiderone 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.
Onel5969TT 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.