Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Note that there are no keep votes except from SPA accounts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bambi Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable magazine. Only independent sources are trivial in-passing mentions (several on non-notable blogs). Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP Guillaume2303 has no obvious understanding of fashion and what is relevant, this subject is far from his general field. And though just created recently, it cites more than many other magazines including but not limited to articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dossier_Journal. Sir Chadly (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Sir Chadly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please do not comment on editors, comment on the issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: User:SirChadly has been blocked for meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Sir Chadly is right that Bambi Magazine page contains more references and external links than most of the similar Magazine Wikipedia pages. Moreover, if you search for Bambi Magazine on Google then their live suggestions shows "bambi magazine wiki" at the top. This indicates that a lot of people have been searching for the Wikipedia page of Bambi Magazine, hence this short page is perfect for them. 09beemali (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — 09beemali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note for closing admin: User:09beemali has been blocked for meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, per WP:NOTABILITY. Above 'keep' votes come from WP:SPA users, and there's reason to believe WP:COI is an issue. Under the same umbrella, see also Jarred Land. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP The magazine is relevant in the fashion and photography industries, and as such is relevant in arts and culture. As noted by Sir Chadly and 09beemali there are several fashion publications that are in a similar state, for example 25 Magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Magazine. Further, the links to blogs and discussions of these publications is proof of community within an industry, as well as a subject of international common interest. ChesterBarn (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — ChesterBarn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note for closing admin: User:Chesterbarn has been blocked for meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The above SPA editors should read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTAVOTE. In addition, none of their arguments are relevant to policy and they would also do well to familiarize themselves with WP:GNG and WP:V. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Allow me to quote and also point out the misuse of reference material by Guillaume2303 and the IP. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist." The keyword here being "solely." Editors have referenced other magazines, as they are free to do, but have not based their fair and appropriate arguments "solely" on those references. Further, given the tenacious behaviour by Guillaume2303 and the IP (please reference their respective history), I would ask for an Administrator at this point to intervene. Sir Chadly (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Sir Chadly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Goodness, do I welcome an administrative overview! The implication that I'm somehow connected to Guillaume2303 strikes me as a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the substance of the discussion, as well as the possible connection of the single purpose accounts above. Let's do solicit sysop input. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, 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. ChesterBarn (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — ChesterBarn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Typically, administrators will know what to do with such single-purpose accounts, and when the article is deleted usually the SPAs go away. A sockpuppet investigation is always an option anyway. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. This Google News search and this Google News archive search show several references, primarily brief stories that say a particular model appeared in the magazine with an accompanying photograph. I didn't find anything at Advertising Age, Masthead Online or http://www.foliomag.com/, each of which might be expected to have some coverage of a magazine title. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Nothing special to see here, just another "magazine" with provocative pictures of women. No strong third-party coverage, nothing to fulfill our notability requirements, just pretty pictures. Closing admin should take notice of the SPA activity here, attempting to skew the results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP Please do not discount this comment, given the nature of some of the arguments surrounding this issue, I'm choosing to comment anonymously, away from my user account. Unlike some here, I'm a professional in this field, once worked at Conde Nast as an editor, and do know my fashion. I've actually ordered copies of the magazine. I would argue the magazine itself is important. Its heavy focus on fashion photography  alone makes it important. The magazine is of great quality, high-grade glossy paper, and from what I can tell, roughly 300 pages, with only a couple ads. This is more like a book. I think anyone holding it and actually going through it would be greatly impressed. Found this just now. []. Being in the industry I see a lot of magazines, this one actually is different. 173.243.33.130 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — 173.243.33.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note for closing admin: the above IP has been blocked for meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:RELIABLE. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to offer any credible evidence of notability, and searches are not productive at all. The involvement of COI editors, possible socks, and a series of s.p.a.s are all irrelevant, however symptomatic. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I, personally, am getting a little insulted by some of the accusations and innuendo. I normally wouldn't mention this, as it's personal, but I've studied art history for 4 years, and have begun my Masters in Fashion history. I'm well versed on the topic. Given what I've seen, I'm not sure I want to carry on here much longer. The way that Wikipedia treats arts based publications, especially newer or smaller ones, is joke. That said, this magazine in particular has a strong following. A Google Image search will reveal approximately 14 solid pages of images, directly linking to various third party magazines, articles, blogs etc. I would say this has some notability. It should also be noted that this is a fashion magazine and more so, an international one. If some individuals are having a hard time locating "credible evidence", then maybe they are not searching in the right places. If you factor in that the President of RED Digital Camera [] has partnered with Bambi Magazine, I would say that would constitute some notability, too. ChesterBarn (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, and the 'direct linking' of images is not significant coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment And I wouldn't normally mention it, but I've taught art for nearly twenty years and write about the subject for national publication. The issue has never been about the quality of the magazine, or whether it has followers. It's this, which has been stated over and over: nobody has yet found multiple reliable sources to establish its notability. The numerous accounts arguing 'keep'--and we can leave it to an admin to check their relationship to one another--have tried to play the cyberbullying card, which is embarrassing to the mag and its associated editors. I've created and edited numerous articles in the arts here, with none of the problems evidenced in this discussion, because I've always started with reliable sources. Doing otherwise and then getting pissed off when challenged suggests nothing but conflict of interest and a promotional agenda. It's painfully transparent when single purpose accounts don't get their way and threaten to leave Wikipedia as a result. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, CU suggests that it's meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the publication. QU TalkQu 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. 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.Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - completely fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT Choosing to post anonymously. The article did have some credible references but they've since been edited out. There is no incentive in this climate to improve the article as references keep being deleted. I would also like to reference this []. Administrators offering to accommodate active editors on this page do not come off as impartial. We have rules about Canvassing here []. 174.91.94.229 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — 174.91.94.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note for closing admin: the above IP has been blocked for meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Glad you're referencing my conversation at Drmies' page. As Sir Chadly requested above, I was seeking administrative intervention. But if you want to go with the canvassing accusation, I won't get in the way. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.