Talk:Butt (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

I just created the page this morning, and have not had ample time to find secondary sources to explain its importance in the LGBT-community. Please allow me time to do so. The placement of the "Speedy Deletion" tag seems a bit unwarranted, given how long the article has been in existence (less than an hour). I will either find justifiable sources, or delete the article myself. Thank you. Icarus of old (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article requires a lot of cleanup as well as more verificability. It barely passes as a keeper right now. I think it would be a good idea to set a deadline for improvement, or this might be deleted. Please debate the matter below. If no one suggests a deadline, I will set one myself. Otherwise, this will be deleted. Meis funny Oh yeah! 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article back onto people's watchlist radar! I agree that the article should be fleshed out more, but I'm not sure I see what's so terrible about it that it would need to be deleted. Besides, there is no deadline for improving articles; their subjects either are notable or they are not, and I (at least) think Butt is. Can you explain what it is you think violates NPOV about the article? I do think the last paragraph is a bit promotional in tone, but that just means it needs to be rewritten. Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The hardest part about writing this article is the lack of reliable secondary resources, especially considering that the magazine is fairly young in the industry. I'm not affiliated with the magazine, and I tried not to have an advertisement serve as the basis of the article's necessity of being in Wikipedia. It's true, the article needs a lot of work. Other magazines of similar standing have representation online, and I feel that Wikipedia lacks in sufficient examples of LBGT-medias in comparison to normative media. I understand Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I don't think that the article reads that way. Solid, constructive criticism would be infinitely more valuable in Wikipedia's aims than this notice, which offers no suggestions for improvement. Icarus of old (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be from a conservative or religeous point of view, against gays. I think it is fine until the last paragraph, where it does violate NPOV, it also needs to be expanded. Meis funny Oh yeah! 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the above comment doesn't at all explain or offer any helpful criticisms beyond what was said already. Confusionball offered some wonderful sources for expansion, which I will launch into when I have some time. And there is still no explanation given at all for why one person thinks that the last paragraph violates NPOV. Icarus of old (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for confusion or bad clarifying. But what I am trying to say is that the last paragraph needs to be rewritten because it is not from a neutral point of veiw. You could also explain why the magzine is notable in showing popularity and sales by researching in the sites below. Searching Ask, Google, and MSN Search, I couldn't find hardly any more reliable resources. Simply state the facts as is with no commentary. The last paragraph only very minorly violates NPOV, but it doesn't seem to contain needed facts. I would do this editing myself, but this is not my expertise. I simply found it by chance. Meis funny Oh yeah! 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)