The result was keep. Many sources have been provided. A lot of them do not constitute significant coverage, but the few that do are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in multiple reliable source to prove this magazine deserves a separate article. The article was previously PRODed, but that was contested with this rationale. Responding to that, bestmediainfo is not a good source, even so, it does not have significant coverage on the OPEN magazine, it is an interview of Manu Joseph with focus on his book Serious Men. The same for the sify interview, it does not have any significant coverage on OPEN magazine. The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Neptune 123 ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Reply to Blue Rasberry
Note to closing admin:
The editors who voted keep are showing WP:ILIKEIT attitude. All of them failed to address two points 1. The article does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable source and 2. significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.
In my reply to Blue Rasberry, I have shown his arguments are bordering WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INTERESTING. Milowent ( talk · contribs), having failed to refute the rationale behind the nomination, resorted to ad hominem as a last resort to win the argument [13]. I hope the closing admin knows what he/she is doing. -- Neptune 123 ( talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Many sources have been provided. A lot of them do not constitute significant coverage, but the few that do are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in multiple reliable source to prove this magazine deserves a separate article. The article was previously PRODed, but that was contested with this rationale. Responding to that, bestmediainfo is not a good source, even so, it does not have significant coverage on the OPEN magazine, it is an interview of Manu Joseph with focus on his book Serious Men. The same for the sify interview, it does not have any significant coverage on OPEN magazine. The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Neptune 123 ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Reply to Blue Rasberry
Note to closing admin:
The editors who voted keep are showing WP:ILIKEIT attitude. All of them failed to address two points 1. The article does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable source and 2. significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.
In my reply to Blue Rasberry, I have shown his arguments are bordering WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INTERESTING. Milowent ( talk · contribs), having failed to refute the rationale behind the nomination, resorted to ad hominem as a last resort to win the argument [13]. I hope the closing admin knows what he/she is doing. -- Neptune 123 ( talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply