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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Now (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMAGAZINE. (Contested prod, but the contester did not specify which criterion for magazine notability the article meets.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed that most of the text on the article was contributed by an SPA called AstroNow (talk · contribs). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think it probably meets the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the notability criteria: The article does not meet criteria #2 (received a notable award) or #3 (proceedings of highly prestigious society or association), gives no indication of meeting criteria #1 (making significant impact in its field) or #4 (regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works)—so what's notable about it? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the WP:GNG, which I think it may well meet. Rotten regard Softnow 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the Royal Astronomical Society, "The principal amateur astronomy magazine in Britain is Astronomy Now".[1] This is enough to pass on WP:NMAGAZINE #1: "The periodical has made significant impact in its field". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I looked for a while but only could find passing mentions and some recommendations of it, by Astronomy for dummies for example). Astronomy Now is an awkward name to search for. Whether or not it meets WP:NMAGAZINE seems to be beside the point since there is nothing we can say about Astronomy Now that won't just be based on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it a stub article. The purpose of AfD is to determine the existence of an article on a topic. It's hard to find a more definitive source than the the Royal Astronomical Society calling it the principal amateur astronomy magazine. BTW I added that source it wasn't part of the original article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination: Green Cardamom's reference for the magazine's notability meets WP:NMAGAZINE #1, and has added the relevant information to the article, thus my original reason for deletion is no longer relevant. (The article still needs to be shortened significantly and improved in tone (to remove the ingrained COI by the main contributor) by someone familiar with the subject.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:14, 26 November 2012 (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.