Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So So Gay

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. Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So So Gay

So So Gay (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)

Article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, mainly the website itself. Does not appear to be a notable publication. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The only source about the magazine itself that I could find was this interview of the first editor from 2011. He described it as "the most popular and fastest-growing online LGBT lifestyle magazine in the UK." 40,000 readers per month. OTOH there were many recent hits about the content of the magazine, especially interviews. So it looks like it is small but widely read among bloggers. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Most popular" and "fastest-growing" are unverifiable claims, and no number of readers confers an automatic notability freebie on a publication that isn't the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:NMEDIA. But with this article relying almost entirely on the magazine's own content about itself for sourcing, that hasn't been demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but this version as written and sourced is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: I suspect this webzine is notable, but you wouldn't know it from the existing references.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2015 (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.