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. asilvering (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Back 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)

This promotional article for a local lifestyle magazine is a WP:REFBOMB that despite 31 citations has not a single source that qualifies for WP:GNG. Consider:

• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the magazine in coverage, mostly non-independent, or official bios of its founders: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
• Brief mentions of the magazine's coverage of organizations featured in it in blog posts by those own organizations (self-referential and not secondary) [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs such as the magazine's trademark, gov docs and its own webpages: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
• WP:USERGENERATED business directories: [25], [26], [27], [28]
• Pure advertising for Giving Back magazine: [29]

A BEFORE search turns up nothing else. A note on page history: I draftified an earlier version of this page to give the creator time to make improvements, but the page creator requested deletion of the draft and posted a mostly identical version to mainspace again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Mexico, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The first issue was published in 2007, so it’s a relatively old publication. The magazine has covered major regional events, for example, the coverage of Prince Albert II’s visit. It also documents local events in the San Diego-Tijuana area, including philanthropy and community events. There is some coverage in reliable sources as well, and I believe Fox News is good enough to show notability. The previous version had approximately 20 citations. This one has more than 30. Tnifty (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of red herrings here. The age of the publication is of no relevance to its notability. The events the publication has covered are of no relevance to its notability. The Fox source you refer to (not Fox News but San Diego's local Fox affiliate) has a single sentence that says: Giving Back Magazine partners with several organizations in San Diego and Tijuana and showcases the people and companies that are doing good in the communities. (This is not WP:SIGCOV that qualifies toward notability.) The number of citations has no bearing on notability (and indeed, a large number may undermine the case for it; see WP:REFBOMB). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The magazine is recognized by the San Diego Tourism Authority as part of the region’s Ethnic Print Media, noting its role in documenting local events and community projects. It has been cited on local TV stations in both English and Spanish. The Fox News link also had a video interview, though that appears to have been removed. CBS8 News cited the magazine as a source for a story on a local philanthropist. Nonprofits such as the San Diego History Center and Resounding Joy have referenced the magazine when promoting their events. Regarding the reference bomb claim, many of the sources cited come from government organizations and non-profits which are independent sources. Tnifty (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and give me back the time I wasted evaluating the sources. Not a single acceptable one in the bunch; some of them are local people or organizations who noted they were in the magazine, others are passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The magazine is recognized by the San Diego Tourism Authority, which certifies it as one of only 25 Non-Daily & Online Media Outlets in San Diego, a city with a population of 1.4 million. This listing highlights its relevance within the region’s media landscape. The magazine has been featured in interviews on major media outlets, including Univision Radio, which conducted a 12-minute interview on the magazine's 10-year anniversary. Univision Radio is the second most popular radio station in San Diego, with a listener base that reaches 6.8% of the population (Statista). Another interview also featured discussions about the magazine's contributions to the community.

  Additionally, KUSI San Diego, the most-watched news station in the region, conducted an in-depth interview and report about the magazine. The magazine has also been cited by CBS News 8, which referenced its role in promoting stories on local philanthropy, including features on regional philanthropists and community-driven projects.

  These references demonstrate sustained engagement with local media and organizations, reflecting the magazine’s role in covering regional events, philanthropy, and cross-border community projects. Combined with its 18-year history, these features indicate its lasting relevance within the San Diego-Tijuana area. Tnifty (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You've raised these sources repeatedly and they have been discussed and dismissed. Being recognized by the San Diego Tourism Authority is not a standard of notability at Wikipedia. The KUSI interview is just that, an WP:INTERVIEW of the founders of the magazine, and thus is is both non-independent and it is a primary source. Meanwhile, both the KUSI and CBS News 8 videos are hosted on Giving Back Magazine's YouTube channel, which brings any independence of these sources into question. There appears to be a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these sources are new, while others provide clarifications but they have been grouped together without distinction. Additionally, multiple news segments in Spanish do not appear to have been fully considered in this discussion, despite Wikipedia’s guideline that sources may be in any language. Since the magazine operates in a bilingual region (San Diego-Tijuana), where Spanish-language media plays a significant role in local coverage, ensuring that sources in both English and Spanish are fully evaluated is essential for a proper assessment.

  The San Diego Tourism Authority is the official organization established by the City of San Diego to promote and provide information about the region’s media, businesses, and services. It is reliable and government owned, and independent of the magazine. They have reviewed, certified, and listed Giving Back Magazine as one of the 25 Non-Daily & Online Media Outlets in San Diego, a city of 1.4 million people. This demonstrates official recognition of the magazine’s role in the region’s media landscape.

  The news segments produced by independent and reliable news stations, including Univision, have not been fully considered. Univision Radio aired a 12-minute segment about the magazine’s 10-year anniversary, and another interview is available here. Univision Radio is the second most popular radio station in San Diego, reaching 6.8% of the population (Statista). Additionally, CBS8 News covered a story originally reported by the magazine, citing Giving Back Magazine as the original source. KUSI San Diego, the city’s most-watched news station, also conducted an in-depth segment on the magazine.

  Wikipedia guidelines state that :"Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." and "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." As television and radio broadcast signals are transitory in nature, they can be seen archived on the YouTube channel. Wikipedia’s WP:PUBLISHED guideline states: "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." There is no question as to the independence of these sources, as they are clearly identified with their respective news stations. Wikipedia also states: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact."

  The news stations covering the magazine, FOX, CBS, and Univision, are all notable media organizations. Multiple reliable sources have provided significant and repeated coverage. A 12-minute news segment is certainly not trivial.

  While some of these news segments mention or interview the magazine’s founders, this does not negate their secondary source nature. The interviews were conducted by journalists who provided their own editorial analysis and framing of the subject. Rejecting these sources solely because they mention the founders does not align with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. These news reports combine primary elements, such as direct interviews, with secondary elements, including the news station’s independent coverage, context, and editorial framing. Wikipedia recognizes that a source can contain both primary and secondary content, and what matters is the depth of independent analysis. Dismissing these sources solely because they include interviews or are archived on YouTube does not negate their reliability or significance under Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Tnifty (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom's exhaustive source check and Clarityfiend's comments. Trivial mentions, primaty sources, user-generated sources, as well as the WP:REFCLUTTER that hinders readability. Quantity over quality is never good. It also might just be too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2025 (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.