Talk:Fagbug

Neologism concern
"fagbug" would be considered a proper name, and thus should be immune to neologism concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability concern
The article has references to articles specifically about fagbug from Newsweek and Vanity Fair, among others - not exactly weak secondary sources. That's a pretty strong case for notability. Please voice your agreement or disagreement, so that consensus can be discerned. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both your recent posts. I've left a message on the poster's talk page asking him to come here to discuss his concerns, but I think the neologism tag at least can be safely removed.  I'd argue that the notability tag is also misapplied here, but we can give him a day or so to defend that one.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the notability tag. Multiple independent reliable sources = notable. The tagger seems to be pushing some sort of agenda through these tags on a number of articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gents, just because it was me doesn't mean it is illegitimate. This is some girl's art project, a very nice art project, but still some girl's art project. The website is an extension of her myspace. The only reason this article is not an orphan is because the image has been use in a few other articles. This was not printed in Vanity Fair, it was covered in "Stick Shift: The Gay Car Blog", by a blogger who posts on vanity fair's website. This was not printed in Newsweek, it was covered in blog by some kid at Northwestern for Current, a "magazine written, edited and arted by college students, and produced in cooperation with Newsweek.". The third source is dead and fourth appears no be a no-name guide to Albany. Not exactly Andy Warhol here. Most damning of all, this article was nominated for deletion because of, anyone care to guess? Its questionable notability! And the vote to delete was unanimous. You can question my motives until the cows come home, this article may not be notable, I'm not the first editor who has thought so and informing readers of this possibility is hardly the diabolical scheme some of you are making it out to be. - Schrandit (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so yes, it wasn't in Newsweek -- it was in a magazine that Newsweek helps produce, with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands, and it appears on Newsweek.com. It wasn't in Vanity Fair, it's something Vanity Fair choose to have on VanityFair.com. The deletion request was some time before the documentary began going around, getting accepted for a number of festivals. The deletion approval was based on apparently a single reference, there are now more. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your motives would be much less in question if you didn't repeatedly tag the same page despite reliable sourcing. Yes, the article was deleted a year and a half ago for notability. Apparently no one bothered to do a simple Google news search at the time, as there are several reliable sources that pre-date the AFD. With the release of the documentary there are more. Otto4711 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's even a list of available sources (some are blogs, but many qualify as RS) on her site.  APK  that's not my name  04:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, once a documentary film is touring the film fests and written up in national media there is little question that it is indeed notable. -- Banj e b oi   05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Updating sponsors
I removed the mention of the sponsor of Sundance and added the mention of HD Radio. Right now, what's referenced is VW and HD Radio, which are sourced from the extensive article on Evoke. The previous source was a local news station's coverage. According to emails with Erin, this write-up was inaccurate. While the previous sentence doesn't qualify as a source or citation, but the sentence I modified in the article is cited properly. --Philosophistry (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
I think that maybe there should be a section on this page to point out that there are some people who have negative critiques of the Fagbug. The whole thing reads like a mash note or PR release from Erin. I know for a fact that there's a decent section of the LGBT community who are not ok with this, which is something that Erin acknowledges in her presentations and in the Fagbug film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.202 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually an article that has a controversy section also has reliable sources for the controversy.Popish Plot (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fagbug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090710124431/http://blog.newsweek.com:80/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)