Deletion of Dagga Magazine

Comment: The content of this article is commendably frank about their Indiegogo campaign. However, neither that nor the primary sources in the article, nor the several mentions listed above provide the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is required for ,  or  and my own searches are not finding better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:CORPDEPTH||:WP:PRODUCT||:WP:NWEB)

Comment: A  search indicates a dearth of |in-depth, |persistent coverage in |reliable sources, with such marginal |mentions in news outlets https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dagga+Magazine&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&dcr=0&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV9tWa_ZDWAhWpI8AKHZ5ZBzoQ_AUICigC&biw=360&bih=512  and nothing at all in the literature https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dagga+Magazine&client=ms-android-samsung&dcr=0&tbm=bks&prmd=insv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjxsOc_ZDWAhWoJ8AKHUmeBYUQ_AUIDCgG&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3 . Fails  and concomitantly . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENT||WP:RS||WP:TRIVIAL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: Nothing in the article or the existing sources is newsworthy or notable except to promote the magazine or the push for legalisation for dagga. It is up to the article creator to provide the needed relaible sources to support their claims made in the text or in arguments in this discussion. I agree (since I work with feline (cats) articles, some are poorly sourced). But this is invoking  which is usually ignored in deletion discussions. Besides, this specific argument is comparing 'apples to oranges'. An equal argument would need to provide examples of poorly sourced magazines articles in a plea to keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)