Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagga Magazine
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
— User:Fylbecatulous, 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)