Deletion of Bambi Magazine

Comment: per nom. Doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, per . Above 'keep' votes come from  users, and there's reason to believe  is an issue. Under the same umbrella, see also Jarred Land. Special:Contributions/99.156.68.118|99.156.68.118
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:SPA||WP:COI)

Comment: I would be perfectly happy to accept this article if any of these experts could find a single |reliable source. Instead of wailing about how how unfamiliar the editors are with the fashion community, perhaps they (however many there might be) should become a little more familiar with Wikipedia's community
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: Since you have a registered account and are presumably familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, you understand that our subjective interpretations of the publication are all but immaterial--this might be the most lavishly produced magazine in its field. What's needed to establish notability are published reliable sources, per . Thanks, Special:Contributions/99.156.68.118|99.156.68.118
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: I do not see a problem with notability. The third party database models.com verifies multiple contributors which are also linked to in the article text. In regards to , the use of other similar articles was to simply to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia is lacking in certain areas of information, and that this can be an opportunity to expand Wikipedia to better cover the arts and humanities
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)