Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Star

Hollywood Star

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Magazine is not notable. All info is unsourced. The only source is for a different publication with the same name. Appears to have only been around for a few years. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. jolielover♥talk 16:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect~~ to List of defunct American magazines or List of newspapers in California#Defunct newspapers per WP:ATD. It's covered briefly in this book: [1] and in Hadleigh, Boze (2000). In Or Out?: Gay and Straight Celebrities Talk about Themselves and Each Other. Barricade Books. ISBN 9781569801567. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep per PARAKANYAA.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dakota and the magazine, but mostly both, got sigcov in many articles of the time. They seem entirely intertwined in their coverage, but quite a few profiles on the magazine itself from as far away as Chicago. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], for a few. We could maybe move to be on the writer of the magazine, Bill Dakota. This university press book calls him one of the most notorious gossip writers [7]. Passes GNG either way, and I didn't even do a particularly comprehensive search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PARAKANYAA Andre🚐 08:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, — Maile (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 That says "promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." How does that apply here? None of the coverage I mentioned is that kind of material. An article about a gossip magazine is not a gossip piece itself; or otherwise, we would not have say, TMZ. But TMZ, and this magazine, passes GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the strong case made by PARAKANYAA, also note the title is included in San Jose State's collection documenting the LGBT movement after the late 60s [8]. BTfromLA (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollywood star (the disambiguation page): This page, in general, only talks about itself from a non-notable perspective, with its only source basically serving as its official website. As for my proposed action, while I generally feel a redirect link to a content page is applicaple (as 4meter4 mentioned), I don't think the target pages recommended, or suitable enough, offer enough information to defy such a redirect. So instead, I believe it would be better, at least for the time being, to have this page redirect to this disambiguation page. — Alex26337 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex26337 The current status of the page is irrelevant when sources exist, see WP:NEXIST. Do you think the sources that exist are not enough to establish notability? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Not necessarily. There are times when, for the articles I consider for deletion, keeping, or an otherwise alternate action, I look to see if there's a chance that there is more information (usually starting at Google Scholar, but not limited to that site). However, this process isn't always on the front of my mind, and I may miss thinking like this at times. I don't want it to seem like I'm indifferent to certain values; honestly, I still see myself as a new and ignorant person when it comes to the many traits of notability guidelines, so I feel a bit sensitive to this opposition to my opinion. Nonetheless, I empathize to your perspective, and have seen that, while the article is in a, "phase fit for improvement", it doesn't stop the fact that there is enough to take this article beyond the lines of such a baseline.
Anyways, despite my neutral perspective about this subject, I'll be changing my vote to Keep as a result of this new development (which once again opened my eyes to this "consideration" experience). Also, I don't want you to take my reaction harshly, alright? Discussions like these just helps me prepare for similar situations in the future. Thanks (I still feel sensitive about it though). — Alex26337 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the subject meets WP:GNG, and the page should be retained. Morekar (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing has now been provided. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]