Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine

Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly PROMO. No links to any critical discussions of the magazine, all I find are articles they've published. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Social science, and Florida. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Hi - I based the model for the article on Gold Coast (magazine) as an example, for which 14 of the 16 citations are to itself or it's parent company.

  If that's the incorrect way to do it, how do you build out citations for a media outlet that don't involve citing at least some of outlet's content? Absent a controversy (see, e.g. Fox v. Dominion), most small media outlets aren't often cited by other media outlets. I understood general rule was the more citations that added relevant context, the better. But if the citations to the magazine make it the article questionable or spamy, it's easy to remove them...except then it's left with 2 or 3 citations, which then begs the notability question or gets ding'd for not enough sources.

  And I think this is notable - imo a local media outlet with 15+ years of publishing should be included with the other media outlets for that locality - most of which have as few or fewer citing sources. If there's an article about a city's local media, the the lack of inclusion makes the city wiki less rich (see, e.g., Media in the Tampa Bay area). Check out the following similar articles with few to no sources except to themselves - and this is just Tampa Bay; I suspect if we looked at the vast majority of small media outlets we'd find the same thing. See for example the following: The Ledger (every citation to itself or a press release); La Gaceta (Tampa) (no citations at all); Florida Sentinel Bulletin; Hernando Today (only citation to itself); Highlands Today. That there hasn't been a controversy or a screwup that generated media coverage doesn't make the local media outlet not notable.

  So is it better to (a) have few or no citations to a small media outlet, (b) some (but not all) citations to the media outlet, or (c) exclude the topic entirely because there aren't a lot of citations by other outside sources? Leglamp123 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Follow up to Oaktree b - did further research after my earlier reply, and I was wrong in my opinion that local news doesn't cover other local news absent controversy, so apologies. There are, apparently dozens of local news media stories and articles about the magazine. I've attempted to cite a number of them, organized into what I think might be key topics. Leglamp123 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Notability is presumed for magazines under WP:NMEDIA that verifiably meet, through reliable sources, one or more of the WP:NMEDIA criteria. Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine meets at least one, and probably all of them. It has (1) produced works that have received well-known/significant journalism award (multiple Florida Magazine Assn awards); (2) has a significant history (15+ years of issues); (3) considered by reliable sources to be authoritative / influential in subject area (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); (4) frequently cited by reliable sources (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); and (5) significant publications in non-trivial niche markets (Tampa Bay area, parenting).

Leglamp123 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)