This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It was covered as a pioneering publication covering gay and lesbian professionals. Notability does not expire. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, no, you have not added sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to clearly establish that the magazine is notable — rather, every single source you added has issues of one sort or another:
MagazineCity is just an advertising directory whose only content is an extremely brief marketing blurb, and thus fails to be either a reliable source or to constitute substantial coverage.
Windy City Times is a reliable source in principle (I've used it myself quite a few times), but the specific article in question is still a brief blurb which isn't about the magazine in any meaningful way, but simply mentions its name a single time within the context of coverage of something else — and thus it still doesn't count toward the magazine's notability at all, because the magazine isn't the subject of the coverage. It would be acceptable as corollary support for the cited statement, if the article had enough other sources in it that the question of its basic notability were already satisfactorily covered, but it doesn't demonstrate the magazine's notability in its own right.
The Reuters reprint in The Indian Express is the only one that actually passes both the "reliable source" and "substantial coverage" tests — however, one good source does not constitute enough coverage to deem the topic as having met our notability rules, because it still fails the "multiple sources" test.
None of this is to say that the magazine definitely isn't notable; I'm not personally familiar enough with it to properly judge that one way or the other. But the quality of the article absolutely is not good enough as you've written and sourced it here. (Just for one example, it's clear that the magazine isn't publishing anymore — the MagazineCity listing says so outright, you wrote the article in the past tense, and its website is clearly functioning solely as a paid business marketing database rather than as a publisher of substantive media content — but you've utterly failed to source any indication whatsoever of when it ceased publication. And that example isn't the article's only problem, either, but just one obvious issue that jumps out at me right away.)
So long story short, you have not properly established that the magazine has garnered "substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" that would be sufficient to get it past our notability rules. And while the first speedy nom was declined by another editor for process reasons, and thus the article can't be speedied again, it can still be subjected to our prod or AFD processes if its sourcing isn't significantly and promptly improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
