Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggs

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. John254 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juggs

Nothing to suggest any notability. Score (magazine) was deleted, and I imagine this is on the same sort of level. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~No assertion notability. If not speedied, delete as fails WP:N and WP:V - can find no reliable secondary source with any mention~~. No more bongos 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - where did you look? There are quite a few, see below. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Juggs Magazine" gave me many mentions, at a second glance. Very few that I coul see from reliable sources though, and none that I could see that was coverage of the magazine. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give me a couple of days to write the article. I tried to reference it a while back, and got sidetracked, to Dian Hanson. Look at all the references there. They are all about her being the editor of Juggs. Trust me, there is plenty there about the magazine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources on Dian Hanson, really. Magazine has a two-sentence mention in one and a one-word mention in another. Maybe I was a little hasty though, maybe the article should redirect to her. No more bongos 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. They do go into the history of the magazine a fair bit, actually. Dian Hanson is to Juggs as Hugh Hefner is to Playboy; you can't really write about one without the other. Give me a couple of days, and I'll show it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, done. Yes, the actual history of the mag is mostly gleaned from the Dian Hanson pieces. I think that's also enough for notability, however. And the Village Voice calls it "the magazine of choice for breast men", which could also be enough. But the really interesting notability isn't from there, it's from "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." (which is really a WP:BIO criterion, but I hope you get the idea). In short, whenever any humorist needs a one-word recognizable name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. That's what the Simpsons cite mentioned below is all about. But more than that, when Wikipedia:Reliable sources, like CNN, or the New York Times need a one-word name of a pornographic magazine, they use Juggs. Between that and the fair history we can get from the Dian Hanson articles, I hope you'll change your opinion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The magazine has been in publication nation-wide (at least) for at least two and a half decades [1]. The article needs a lot of work, sure, but the subject is certainly notable and certainly worthy of an article. I take AnonEMouse's offer to work on the article as evidence that the article will get that work. Dekkappai 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Established porn mag going back at least 25 years. It's part of the landscape. Many 3rd party mentions, even a passing CNN mention [2]. Will work to compile sources. • Gene93k 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll be honest. I've never seen one. I don't want to search for the sources on the work computer, but...in The Principal and the Pauper, Homer asks, "Can I see your copy of Juggs, Armen?" So...by virtue of a Simpsons reference...yeah... --Smashville^BONK! 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew all this Simpsons trivia would be good for something... some day!... Dekkappai 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse; it's a very established magazine with numerous resources out there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not my thing, LOL, but certainly a notable subject. Bearian 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn in light of the sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote withdrawn thanks to AnonEMouse's dilligent research. Would appear that bringing articles to AFD seems to be the only effective way to clean them up. Good work! No more bongos 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy Happy Joy Joy! :-) Admit it, it was the Venus of Willendorf reference that made the article. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly comment. :) No more bongos 04:38, 10 November 2007 (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.