Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Photography

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) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Photography

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability; only significant coverage is press releases/churnalism. "It has won annual awards" is false; it presented the awards that are mentioned. This can be redirected to Network18 Group#Digital and publishing divisions, but there isn't really anything to merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, and Maharashtra. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", I have undeleted and relisted this discussion as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So, I requested an undeletion and relist of this discussion after doing in-depth findings. I do not want to delete a 1997-founded "photography magazine", I also think we should be careful when judging notability of periodicals in general.A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF. — This magazine has been cited in several reliable scholarly/academic publications; citation 3 here, same here, Figure 11 here, citation 15 here, same here, I see it cited as part of this research's result of analysis, citation 11 here, citation 2 here, right here, Figure 11 here, Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media, The Lost Legacy of the Nilgiris, Figure 11, page 27, this piece. There are so many other citations I see from here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VWF's rationale and sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the evidence detailed above that the magazine has been cited by numerous reliable sources particularly academic sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (as nominator): I was unaware of this criterion in WP:Notability (periodicals)/WP:Notability (media) when I nominated this. The criterion is reasonable, but I'm unsure whether the number of citations is high enough to be "used regularly as a reliable source". Not opposed to keeping. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we need now is for User:AgerJoy and User:Asteramellus to present their opinion on Vanderwaalforces' new post. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly after sources by Vanderwaalforces. AgerJoy 19:24, 27 February 2025 (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.