Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioGamer Girl 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 and redirect to List of video game magazines. Nakon 18:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BioGamer Girl Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even after the massive cleanup this article needs, all that remains are unreliable and primary sources—we need secondary sources that actually discuss the topic in depth. The offline sources aren't used to make more than passing reference to the actual contents of the magazine. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video game magazines or delete, depending on the list inclusion criteria. I tried and mostly failed to find in-depth reliable sources for this site. The site is included in the gamerankings.com pool of review sites which is a weak claim to notability, but not sufficient for WP:GNG. The gameranking inclusion perhaps provides enough verifiability to include the magazine in List of video game magazines; there seem to be other non-notable magazines in the list and the redirect is a plausible search term. But the inclusion criteria for that list are unclear to me. --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps for now as it's quite detailed but still nothing for solid independent improvements thus not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, as suggested); article relies on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to that list wouldn't make sense here because that list only contains notable publications (with their own articles) czar 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking, SwisterTwister, and Soetermans, ping re: redirection czar 15:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your assertion, but the list has many red links, web links, and no links for entries. The talk page, e.g., Talk:List of video game magazines#Should blogs be in here?, shows that "list only contains notable publications" hasn't yet been established. I and NinjaRobotPirate have proposed sources sufficient for verifiability of basic facts in the list entry. Given this, it is safer to redirect to the list, and list inclusion criteria can eventually be decided later. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's how most lists on Wikipedia work—either the entries need to be individually notable for their own articles or have some sourcing to warrant their inclusion (otherwise the list is indiscriminate). The list's lack of maintenance isn't a reason to add more junk without sources to it. I just cleaned up a handful of sources that are clearly recent, non-notable blogs and new magazines without credibility and anyone else is welcome to do the same. The only redlinks that remain are for non-English outlets, which are generally the last to get articles. czar 17:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your list inclusion criteria are thus inconsistent. There is no indication of notability for those red links, the "reference" for, e.g, BGamer is just the link to main site itself. Whereas at least for this magazine, NinjaRobotPirate and I have shown some secondary references. Either the poorly referenced red link crap needs to get properly referenced or deleted or we decide to allow non-notable entries, but with secondary references verifying the list entry information. I'd be happy for the list to conform to WP:SAL so that only entries with articles are on the list and thus delete in this case. But if we want to include "promissory, hopefully an article could be written on this someday but I have no sourcing to back it up" entries, then this magazine has no less claim to a list entry than the redlinked others. --Mark viking (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my inclusion criteria and it's not strict. The question is what source are we using to warrant adding this item to the list. I'm fine with removing the redlinks from that list—it's more likely than not that the list just hasn't been maintained. (I would also say that there is a difference between we-looked-but-haven't-found-sourcing and sourcing-might-exist-but-we-haven't-checked.) Anyway, I think we're in agreement. czar 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize my reply came off as a bit aggressive. I think we are in agreement, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cited this website once or twice. Life Waver, their video game, got reviewed at HorrorNews.Net. At Dread Central, there's this coverage of Ms. Biogamer Girl 2013 and bit of coverage of the Spring 2012 issue. But this article seems like the best of the bunch, as it goes into a bit more of the magazine's history and doesn't seem to be regurgitating a press release. If I could find something else like that last one, I'd feel more comfortable in voting to keep this. I checked around at Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, and other horror websites, but there doesn't seem to be anything else. I guess it could get stubbed and rewritten around the Dread Central articles, but the coverage is a bit thin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have agree with a redirect, but Czar's point about that list only containing notable publications is well-said. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it is notable in its own right. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to delete or redirect. Sandstein 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video game magazines as it seems like the partial coverage from the likes of HorrorNews.Net and DreadCentral.com is enough to sustain a somewhat brief description of the magazine and its activities without going into details. A full page isn't warranted while a section of a few sentences or such seems like a good idea. I wouldn't object to a straight up deletion, to be honest, but I would prefer retaining the kernel of properly cited information somewhere rather than nowhere. As well, redirects just plain are cheap. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets, what do you make of the above discussion about that list's inclusion criteria? czar 14:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general that something shouldn't be on such a list without some kind of solid sourcing to rely on. However, I feel like the aforementioned HorrorNews.Net and DreadCentral.com are both reasonable enough to cite if all that would be on the list is something like two sentences. I've seen both websites used as sources many times on various pages. And like I said, I wouldn't think that outright deletion is inherently a bad idea either. I just would prefer otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.