Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioGamer Girl

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 Speedy delete by User:Athaenara under criteria WP:SPEEDY#G7. Marasmusine (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BioGamer Girl[edit]

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

This reads largely as an advert - does not establish notability and references are all 'official' sites. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BioGamer Girl does not read like an ‘advertisement.’ The document is fact-based, and there are many reliable sources sited to backup the information within the document. Also, BioGamer Girl cannot become anymore established having already linked references to websites where you can purchase the magazine through Magcloud, listen to radio programs from BlogTalkRadio and read a business review from Better Business Bureau. In addition to Magcloud and Better Business Bureau, there are other references to websites that are not directly affiliated with BioGamer Girl such as the Days of the Dead vendors link. Please check these sources and remove the deletion notice upon further review. I am a regular contributor to this entry, and I am always trying to help improve it. Thank you. XXmAsTeRsHaKe (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— XXmAsTeRsHaKe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—True, the article has many references listed. But as a whole they seem very soft on satisfying WP:GNG. Sorry but I can't support a keep at this time. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has been covered by local print media and has held charity events. See References. Amandadyar (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— Amandadyar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no indication that they meet notability criteria. As to the references - Better Business Bureau is not counted as reliable, as it is unknown what vetting or verification process the BBBs use with the information they receive from consumers and other businesses, or if there is a verification process - with claims that they award more favorable ratings to businesses that pay for BBB membership (see ABC News story); MagCloud "is the primary publisher/distributor of BioGamer Girl", so they are not independent; Blogtalkradio "allows anyone, anywhere the ability to host a live, Internet Talk Radio show", so anything broadcast there does not meet the reliable criteria for sources. I can't find any independent reliable coverage of this magazine. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Days of the Dead link merely shows that BioGamer Girl is a vendor at the event - it's a list of names of vendors, so not significant coverage, and is advertising for the event, nothing more PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amandadyar is presumably Amanda Dyer, who is the Editor-In-Chief/CEO of BioGamer Girl (see BioGamer Girl staff). XXmAsTeRsHaKe is presumably Kenny King, who uses that tag according to the same page, who is Copy Editor/Reviewer for BioGamer Girl. Both have a clear conflict of interest here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User Amandadyar requested deletion per {{db-g7}} today more than once. After the page had been in CAT:UCSD most of the day, I deleted it and referenced this AfD in my deletion summary. – Athaenara ✉ 06:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: db-g7 deletion was explicitly requested by both Amandadyar and XXmAsTeRsHaKe, the authors of the "substantial content" per the criterion. – Athaenara ✉ 15:54, 25 June 2011 (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.