Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weird NJ

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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird NJ

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

This article has no reliable independent sources. As far as I can tell, this has always been the case. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present article is bloated with self-promotional cruft that begs removal, but it seems a number of independent sources [1] exist to at least establish the magazine as notable enough for its own (albeit greatly trimmed) article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is provided that the magazine has a very wide circulation, which I doubt it has. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weird NJ and its follow-ups are very well known in the real world, as attested by articles in tons of reliable sources such as the New York Times [2] and the Washington Post [3] and the Associated Press [4][5] and the Boston Globe [6] and the Los Angeles Times [7] and of course Jersey sources such as NJ.com [8] and the Bergen Record [9]. Here's a Chicago Tribune review of the Weird U.S. spinoff. [10] and examples of reviews of others in the series [11][12][13][14] etc. etc. etc. (Search hint: try weird + Moran + Sceurman). -Arxiloxos (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I'm not going to say I'm the arbiter of notability, but I've heard of this. Luckily, Arxiloxos did all the heavy lifting already. There are also hits at usatoday.com, for example this. It's clearly notable outside of the NY and NJ area. Which is actually a little bit surprising to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the extensive coverage in New Jersey media and the national coverage listed above, is the entry for the publication in the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. Do I believe that some road is haunted or that there's a tree in the state that is a portal to hell, but this is the publication that provides the material, which is widely reproduced in the media. It's that coverage that establishes notability; circulation is irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently edited per above discussion, sources added and cruft trimmed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no evidence as to why the page of a once-local periodical, now national icon (re: books on topics across the country) should be deleted without a more extensive explanation other than a lack of sources. Maybe a simple Google search would help with that. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 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.