Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Mag

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Mag

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

Non-notable magazine / media company. No coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever; only their own website, magazine and press releases (i.e. self-published and primary). So fails WP:ORGCRITE which requires independent, third-party sourcing of persistent and indepth coverage. This indicates neither; not notable. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and fails WP:NMEDIA Razer^{Text me} 12:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "dedicated to supporting and promoting emerging artists..." is pure WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure to adhere to basic notability guidelines. Primary sources are also heavily frowned upon. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lead section cites multiple point of distinction, supported by relevant sources. 'Arts' section cites creation of custom typeface by third party, notable as per WP:CREATIVE. Coverage in multiple reliable source such as The Guardian and Vice Media Stan.charles84 (talk) 14:29 15 May 2017 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: --- Specifically cites creating "award winning work", backed up with relevant references. This is explicit evidence of notability as per the notability guidelines for newspapers, magazines and journals in WP:NMEDIA sp1987 (talk) 09:25 16 May 2017 (AEST) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — sp1987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: - Several instances of coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian and Australian Broadcasting Company youth radio channel triple j, so notable as per WP:ORGCRITE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.white (talk • contribs) — K.white (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom, and failing WP:NMEDIA. If one discounts the keep votes by "editors" who have only appeared in this AfD, the consensus is unanimous. Ifnord (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the subject fails WP:NMEDIA. The references list is a joke, it's all the magazine itself and one other non-notable pub. Not even close, in my mind. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Actually surprised this hasn't been closed yet.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 18 May 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.