Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Life


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hollywood Life

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While Hollywood Life is slightly notorious for their editorial style (if you could even call it that), the Great Value version of TMZ, an online version of Star, I don’t think they have enough notability for an article. Their parent company claims they reach ~30 million women a month but that figure couldn’t be independently verified. The only reliable source, WSJ, is pay walled so I’m unable to see it but it appears to be more about editor in chief Bonnie Fuller than the website itself. Other sources only mention them briefly and/or focus more on Fuller. If the page isn’t chosen for deletion I highly recommend redirecting it to Penske Media Corporation Trillfendi (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many sources e.g. in New York Times, Wall Street Journal (which has substantial coverage on the website as well as Bonnie Fuller), Ad Week, Adage, Hollywood Reporter. There is also coverage on other aspects of the website e.g. here a Justin Bieber-inspired campaign - . Should pass WP:GNG.  Hzh (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hzh 2 paragraphs (the first sentence, really) into that NYT link point out exactly what I’m talking about; the article is about Bonnie Fuller’s career and Penske Media, it’s not about the website itself. I’m still not able to get to WSJ article “Bonnie Fuller starts to trend” but do they verify these promotional claims of their monthly traffic? AdWeek says right there “Bonnie Fuller gets a nice profile piece in the Wall Street Journal”! That perfectly illustrates my rationale. From reading AdAge it’s once again about Fuller and Penske media rather than Hollywood Life on its own legs. When talking about the website their own publisher says "Bonnie has 5 million uniques.” Shouldn’t it be the website? Hollywood Reporter continues the theme of prefacing every statement with Fuller and Penske. Now, is Justin Bieber having a vendetta against their... lack of editorial standards, and telling his fans to “spam” them really “notability”? I have to stand by the notability-isn’t-inherited notion. We should really redirect this.Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are arguing about something you can't see. I have also no idea why you dismiss the other articles that discuss primarily about the company (e.g. the visitors it had how it affect advertising) or understand that "Bonnie has 5 million uniques" clearly is a reference to the website. It is possible for articles to cover both the person and website at the same time, given that they are linked. The Justin Bieber incidence is significant enough to be covered by The Independent (which is a major newspaper in the United Kingdom). The website is clearly significant enough to warrant press coverage (or indeed for Justin Bieber to bother campaigning against it).   Hzh (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hzh How is saying traffic numbers coming from inside the company yet not being independently verified “arguing” about it. 🤔 Go and use your WSJ subscription, I really don’t personally care. I’m pointing these things out as I’m the one who proposed deletion; if you think these improve the quality of the article then be my guest. The primary issue that made me propose deletion is that Bonnie Fuller is being used as a synecdoche for this website and I have yet to see to see a reliable source cover this website in depth without giving the entire weight to Penske Media or Fuller. It’s supposed to be able to stand on its own too. This is an example of how a website’s notability and stats can and should be established and verified without placing it all on its founder, in my opinion. Or this. And I know what the Independent is.Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no subscription to WSJ but still can read it. I think it sets a limit on page views for non-subscribers. Hzh (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep While the article's subject as currently defined probably passes WP:GNG anyway, it's worth noting that the story in this article starts with the brand relaunch, rather than the current website's origins as a magazine/website in its Movieline days (see, e.g., ) before the acquisition. Hollywood Life had RS coverage well before Fuller ever showed up. In other words, if there's any apparent notability issue, it's because the article is incomplete. It's possible that a multiple-page reorganization would provide a better service to readers, but that's an editing issue to discuss on article talk pages, not a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per comments above. --Doncram (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2018 (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.