Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RumorFix

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 redirect to Jay McGraw#RumorFix. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

RumorFix

RumorFix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable website lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Appears to be more of an advertisement. Edited by a media group. reddogsix (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a relevant entertainment news site that is often quoted by mainstream media including CBS News, the Huffington Post and People magazine. It is on par with www.celebuzz.com and www.gossipcop.com, which both have Wikipedia pages. Richardayoub (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sl33pyriceboi (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Why is this article even flagged? It's just like any other entertainment entity/icon here on wiki. How is it advertising? That's a basic bio of what the page is about

• Comment. A site can be quoted, but being briefly mentioned is not the same thing as having an article or coverage about the website. It's very common for a person, site, paper, or television show to be used as a reference in some format but still fall short of notability guidelines. As far as other articles go, the existence of articles on other websites does not factor into this deletion discussion, as the existence of similarly themed articles could mean that the website you're referencing does have coverage to show notability or it could just be an article that has yet to be flagged for deletion. All that matters is that you can show that the website has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Trivial mentions or references from another paper/magazine/site/etc does not count. It shows that it's been mentioned and that it might be usable as a reliable source for other articles, but not that it has notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, as far as its association with notable persons goes, that does not extend automatic notability to the website, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless I can find RS that's about the website specifically, I'm leaning towards redirecting this to Jay McGraw since he is one of the lead figures involved in the website's creation.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jay_McGraw#RumorFix. The website did receive some coverage when it first started up, but other than some news articles announcing that it was launching, there has been a lack of coverage about the website itself. Mentions in other sites or in magazines such as People show that it could be used as a RS, but being a RS doesn't guarantee that it would automatically pass notability guidelines. This doesn't seem to have much notability outside of the people who launched and run it, so I'm proposing that this be redirected to the section on McGraw's article that I created for this. It might be that in the future the website receives more coverage other than trivial mentions in various publications, but until that point it should be redirected. No amount of trivial mentions, no matter where those might be, makes up for a lack of in-depth coverage in RS and to show that this website meets notability guidelines we'd need something to show that it got more in-depth coverage outside of its launch. So far I don't see that it's received it and if not for McGraw becoming involved, I doubt it would have received that. Most of the launch coverage gives equal focus to McGraw, hence why I think he'd be the best redirect target.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that RumorFix should be listed as part of Jay McGraw's article -- that's a great idea. But, I also believe that it is "notable" on its own account.

You may know that a publication, whether it be print or electronic, gains "notability" -- not by people writing articles about them -- but by others quoting them.

Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia -- and because of that Wikipedia is on the forefront of recognizing digital properties like RumorFix.

As you may know RumorFix has gained respect and recognition of the following: CBS News ABC News CNN Huffington Post Entertainment Tonight Extra Access Hollywood WetPaint Entertainment People Magazine Us Weekly omg! Yahoo MSN Wonderwall Perez Hilton and almost 2,000 others

RumorFix is not unlike the Pasadena Star News, which has it's own article. It's not unlike WetPaint that has it's own article.

It is a publication that is respected, quoted and notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.192.75 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2013

• That's not really how notability works here on Wikipedia. Topics pass notability guidelines because they receive coverage that directly talks about them specifically rather than just name dropping them in relation to other subjects. What sets WetPaint as notable is that the site has received coverage about the site itself in multiple venues such as Time Magazine listing it as one of their best websites for 2007. RumorFix hasn't gotten that yet. They've been mentioned in various places, but they're all trivial mentions that say that the site has commented on the story du'jour or mentioning the site as an aside. The news outlets and sites you're mentioning didn't actually talk about the site itself as part of a news story. Even if some of them have, you have to show that there is more coverage other than people commenting on the site's launch, which is conspicuously absent at this point in time. The thing about trivial mentions is that no amount of trivial mentions make up for a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A site mentioning the site is not the same thing as the website receiving coverage that would be considered showing notability. It's just far too soon for this to have its own article. It might merit its own article in the future, but for right now there just isn't enough to justify it passing WP:WEB. But in general though, pointing out that such and such a newspaper or website has an article doesn't really pertain to this AfD. Those are those websites and papers and RumorFix is RumorFix. The presence of another article means nothing, as it could just be that those other articles haven't been nominated for deletion or that they meet notability guidelines that RumorFix does not.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the mentions of RumorFix by respected publications qualifies as a "trivial mention." According to the guidelines, RumorFix must have "information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." And, when AP, People, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, Huffington Post, LA Times and others have written articles quoting RumorFix, they have written a complete article about a news story that was broken by RumorFix. It is not a "trivial mention." They have rewritten a story that first broke on RumorFix and have pulled quotes directly from the article -- in most cases 75 percent of the article is from information gathered by RumorFix.

Richardayoub (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect To Jay_McGraw#RumorFix as per TokyoGirl. Significant promotional editing and sockpuppetry can't get over the fact that this still fails WP:WEB. There is no standalone notability outside of the relationship with McGraw. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (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.