Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plugged In

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 Focus on the Family. Consensus here supports mainly a redirect to Focus on the Family - the sources mentioned by Jclemens don't appear to be convincing many people of keeping the article. I'll be deleting the article prior to the redirect because the discussion indicates the current article contains no salvageable content (Jclemens's keep !vote refers exclusively to sources, not to the current article content. Andy Dingley's !vote does not appear to address the concerns about the quality of the current article text at all) and a number of people have advocated such action. This topic might develop more coverage that justifies a separate article in the future, but it doesn't appear to be right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Plugged In

Plugged In (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)

Delete The article for Plugged In is extremely poor and unexceptional. Not only is the article's bulk written like an advertisement and seemingly bias, but simple research proves that an entire Wikipedia article for the publication is likely unnecessary and non-noteworthy. The editor who wrote the majority of the article, @Androidmonkey5:, hasn't edited since July 21, 2015, and has only contributed to this page, leading me to believe he may have a connection with the company. Since this article's information likely couldn't be merged without major reconstruction, it would be best to delete this page. Carbrera (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Almost wholly self-sourced. It justifies a section within Focus On The Family, but not an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Adding a more specific search tool. The bare search terms seems to be the title of at least four separate books in addition to the website/community run by Focus on the Family. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as I've found sufficient sourcing without a lot of effort:
  • Descriptions of Plugged In by other Christian or family-oriented media outlets: PulseFM, Hope 107.9, KPDQ, and WBFJ
  • Quoted as an RS elsewhere: The Christian Beat, Christianity Today
  • Urban Dictionary doesn’t like it: [1]
  • Neither do some even more conservative Christians: [2]
  • Book (by FotF, so not independent) ISBN 9781561796281
  • Self-titled app: App Store, Play Store
  • Their press releases get picked up by NRB.org
  • … and even a reference.com entry [3]

  At any rate, that's a lot of sourcing, even though a lot of it is in passing and some is clearly not RS, like The Urban Dictionary which is fascinating because non-notable things don't tend to attract such criticism. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Jclemens: I appreciate your findings, but this would be better mentioned on the article for Focus on the Family. The Urban Dictionary entry has no place on the aforementioned article. Additionally, the Gospel Spam article doesn't look reliable. The app and print sources are good and all, but much more suitable on the Focus on the Family article. Carbrera (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So if you're proposing a merge, withdraw this AfD under WP:SKCRIT point one, and start it at the talk page. If we delete this article, nothing from it can be reused per WP:CWW. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jclemens: Merge what? The bias and obviously self-sourced information that currently plagues the article? There is nothing of use on Plugged In's page that belongs on Focus on the Family. A mere mention of anything, but definitely not an entire article or even a merge. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge with Focus on the Family, its parent entity. Instaurare (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect (after delete) to Focus On The Family; not independently notable. Otherwise, this is strictly advertorial content with passages such as "Plugged In is a resource designed to shine a light on the world of popular entertainment while giving families the essential tools they need to understand, navigate and impact the culture in which they live" and a full-list of non notable editorial stuff. Due to WP:PROMO concerns, a Delete & Redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would "delete and redirect" be a useful move? Why would that ever be a useful outcome? "Merge and redirect" by all means, that has (and always has) several advantages over delete and redirect.

Redirecting to a "blind" article with no relevant content confuses readers (but we keep doing this). Merging gives a useful coverage of a topic, like Plugged In, which might be useful but not WP:N-notable. Deleting also makes it impractical to re-use content, either to access itfor re-use, or to credit its authorship as is required. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: the current article does not appear to have any content suitable for merging. It largely consists of advertorial description of what it does and a list of non-notable staff. For example:

• Plugged In's web site continues what the magazine did, reviewing movies, music, television, video games, and books. It also has a blog and a weekly email newsletter.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and then Redirect as there's no need to keep if it's all questionable and then not convincing for independent notability; there's also no guarantee it will be notable in the future. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 31 August 2016 (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.