Deletion of New York Journal of Books

Comment: Really there are two issues emerging here, firstly whether this article is notable (which it is, two references is enough and having notable reviewers gives some inherent notability); and secondly whether the sources justify a b-class article (which they don't, there aren't enough sources to support most the information in this article.) so this article fails  and possibly , but not 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:N)

Comment: This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America, out of a discussion as to whether this publication is itself "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable" for use on WP (later discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_227#New_York_Journal_of_Books|RSN). The NYJB article then exploded from a series of mentions into what is effectively no different than a series of mentions. Assayer's analysis is spot on: The sources do not have |depth or independence from the publication, and the rest of the sources are either asides or links to author bios, none of which describe NYJB in enough depth for us to paraphrase into an encyclopedia article. If this extraneous information were to be removed from the article, we'd be back at the original stub. The IP editor above (if indeed the NYJB founder) says as much, that there is not much coverage of the pub in reliable, secondary sources (first bullet). (P.S. We could respond on any number of your points raised, but this is the wrong venue for that.) To the point of this AfD discussion, the nominator makes a straightforward case about the ''sourcing'' (not "cleanup") of this article, which does not fulfill the |general notability guideline (re: depth/independence) and which requires more than a dump of passing mentions of the subject. I recommend staying on topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:GNG)

Comment: i can easily find literally hundreds of references to this site on '''independent''' websites and news outlets, while i admit that only (2) of these refernces say anything of note about the actual business, this seems to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Could not find significant coverage by independent, secondary sources. Does not pass  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Suggestions on how to improve the article should be made on the article's talk page. AFD is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: As I commented earlier, I agree with nom's analysis of the Sagetree case study and ''The Booklover Magazine'' interview. They are not independent, reliable, secondary sources. The ''Publishers Weekly'' piece is an acceptable start on sources, but there is no other independent coverage of any depth. I don't see the "two references" A Guy into Books claims, and they haven't responded when asked for elaboration. Does not meet  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB)