Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzine


 * 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. the inclusion criteria is detailed independant sources. keep votes based ona rguments about it existing and it publishes interviews are not based on any accepted inclusion criteria and have less weight then the votes arguing deletion asgainst GNG. This can be undeleted if further detailed press coverage does emerge. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Buzzine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only sources in article are unreliable blogs and own website. Strong hint of self-promotion as it was created by User:Richard Elfman, the editor of the company. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, two of the references are from articles published in the Muskegon Chronicle and syndicated in the Grand Rapids Press, both publications are noted in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskegon_Chronicle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Rapids_Press. Secondly, Buzzine has been around since 1996 and forty noteworthy articles in Wikipedia currently use Buzzine articles as a reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=buzzine+reference. Thirdly, I am new to Wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. This is a pretty much a "stub" article and not meant as self-promotion. Some of my film work could be considered controversial and I know I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but recently there was an effort to remove the article about me, someone even tried to remove my photo for copyright reasons, even though there were no copyright issues. I hope this effort to remove the Buzzine article isn't part of an effort to squelch me personally.Richard Elfman (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's personal; I can't find very many sources that discuss Buzzine in depth either, so this is normal process here. The best sources I can find are these, but they don't really go into any detail (if I've missed any, please post them). We could redirect Buzzine to Richard Elfman and add the content describing Buzzine to your biography. So people searching for "Buzzine" would then be guided straight to the corresponding paragraph in your bio, describing the site. Note that such decisions can always be revisited later on; if the New York Times or LA Times, say, were to write a paragraph or two about Buzzine tomorrow, then that might make a sufficient case for a standalone article. -- JN 466  01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JN466-- I won't take it personally, and appreciate your counsel in the matter. The irony is that I am being approached by journalists from both the N.Y Times and L.A. Times for employment at Buzzine. We'll will be expanding shortly and I look forward to enlisting more top top writers. There most likely will be some press when we formally announce the expansion, so maybe someone will use some of it in Wikipedia. In terms of references, I found about 15 entire Google pages listing Buzzine articles, but no articles specifically on Buzzine except for press interviews that I had done. So if you re-direct Buzzine to my bio until more press, I understand the reasoning. (Maybe I'll make someone from the NY or LA Times write an article about Buzzine before hiring them... just joking!!).Richard Elfman (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Delete, it seems that all the sources only mention buzzine in passing. -- Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Buzzine is a reputable, respected and long-standing culture and entertainment entity. If you Google Buzzine you will find 15 Google pages of Buzzine articles. Doesn't it matter that Buzzine articles are used as sources in over forty noteworthy Wikipedia articles?Richard Elfman71.129.54.107 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I've added a rescue template since we have very marginal sources, and we'd like help finding more. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've tidied the article up a bit and will keep an eye on it. I don't see the harm in our having it, and some benefit, as it does get used as a source by editors here (Buzzine's got original interviews with some top people; Angelina Jolie is the one currently featured.) -- JN 466  10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing against the magazine or author, but the references in the article come from blogs and the magazine's web site, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Richard, I understand that WP policies do not always make sense, but no, Buzzine's value as a reliable source doesn't make Buzzine itself notable. What we really need are some references from magazines or newspapers or books that cover the magazine in some depth. The source do not have to be online, but they do need to be verifiable. Sometimes blogs are acceptable, but the blog should be closely associated with a reliable source, I'll check back later and see if that argument can be made for the ones used in this article. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, I don't see any blog posts. The citations include two articles on mlive.com, which is the website of Booth Newspapers. As far as I can make out, they appeared in the Muskegon Chronicle, which is a daily newspaper. There is also an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Citing a magazine's (or BLP subject's) own website is common practice and expressly allowed by policy, subject to the conditions in WP:SELFPUB being met (which I think they are in this case). -- JN 466  12:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On further scrutiny, I think I was wrong -- they are posts on Bill Iddings' blog, rather than copies of his articles. However, he is a staff writer, and the blog is hosted on the newspaper publisher's website; we allow those per WP:NEWSBLOG. -- JN 466  12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the magazine's web site can be used as a source, but I do not think it can be used to establish notability, which is the issue here. You make a good case for the blogs being acceptable, but do you feel that the coverage in the blogs is more than passing mention (which is what it looks like to me after a quick look)? -- Nuujinn (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is definitely marginal. I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt here, because a site that gets original interviews with the likes of Angelina Jolie seems up and coming to me, and even a basic article on such a site adds value to Wikipedia in my view; but I have no real complaint on policy grounds if you see it the other way. -- JN 466  16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the May 17 article is something, so I refactored my !vote to weak delete. Let's keep looking and see if we can find something else. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching through the dozens of Google news results, I found one which quotes from Buzzine, seeing it as notable enough to quote from.  Plus if its considered a reliable source, then common sense says its notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.  The page for the suggested guidelines say to use them with common sense and the occasional exception.   D r e a m Focus  02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did notice earlier that its interviews with Hollywood stars are quoted internationally too; here for example by the German-language edition of Glamour (magazine), here by the Spanish El Economista. Here is a NY Times blog which links to it. -- JN 466  11:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I do not believe that use as a source makes the source notable, and those references do not provide any form of significant coverage of the magazine. We really need something more substantial. I wonder if there's not any deadtree press from the area that has some coverage. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do any major newspapers get notable coverage of themselves? Should we delete articles on every major newspaper in the world now?   D r e a m Focus  04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Looking at Google Books, I found they are listed in the Gale Directory of Publications & Broadcast Media. -- JN 466  09:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources are weak. Author has a COI.  Delete the article and wait until more sources appear. Then, someone without a COI can decide to write the article.    Snotty Wong   express 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just stating that I have already substantially rewritten the article since it was nominated, based on available sources, and that I do not have a COI here. ;) -- JN 466  09:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also now added basic data about the magazine's location and advertising policy from its entry in the book, Gale Directory of Publications & Broadcast Media 142. -- JN 466  09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Buzzine also has entries in
 * (unfortunately, I can't see the entry in google books) -- JN 466  10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS. I have looked at the new references and they are unconvincing or simple directories. Verbal chat  11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS. I have looked at the new references and they are unconvincing or simple directories. Verbal chat  11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Buzzine is about to sign some expansion deals shortly, that should garner some "press," which, I suppose, will make this discussion moot. Interesting to note, since the inception of this discussion, four more notable Wikipedia articles have used Buzzine as a source. Buzzine has a massive Internet presence, is quoted nationally (U.S.) and internationally, and seems to meet the guidelines of  Wikipedia:Notability (web): "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster..." In the meantime, as more and more notable Wikipedia articles list Buzzine as a source, my question is: Do you want to impart some/any knowledge to your readers as per what that oft-used Wikipedia source (Buzzine) is, or leave them in the dark? Richard Elfman71.129.54.107 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (I'm still a newbie and can't figure out how to sign name with those damned squiggle things!)
 * You need to log in with your user account before posting. :) -- JN 466  16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! (thanks) I learn more about Wikipedia every day!Richard Elfman (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2010 (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.