Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beau Monde

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Monde

[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)

Merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_in_the_Netherlands Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Arts, Journalism, News media, Photography, Entertainment, Health and fitness, Products, Fashion, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Netherlands. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given why this sourced article should be destroyed or merged. The Banner talk 13:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also procedural keep. I can hold and express both positions as the outcome will be the same. No valid reason for deleting was provided. User has a history of nominating articles without rationale. The article is at start status and no article on Pijper Media exists. The list of magazines in the Netherlands is really for outgoing links, and only a last resort for incoming ones. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I disagree with Gidonb's rationale and the idea that the nom must have been inappropriate, but the sources seem okay (I can't read Dutch) and the fact that the article has seen recent interest and improvement (from Gidonb, good job) leads me to think we should give it some time. I'd like to see things about its circulation and cultural impact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2023 (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.