Talk:Fagbug

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to 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, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2008. The result of the discussion was delete.

Neologism concern[edit]

"fagbug" would be considered a proper name, and thus should be immune to neologism concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concern[edit]

The article has references to articles specifically about fagbug from Newsweek and Vanity Fair, among others - not exactly weak secondary sources. That's a pretty strong case for notability. Please voice your agreement or disagreement, so that consensus can be discerned. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your recent posts. I've left a message on the poster's talk page asking him to come here to discuss his concerns, but I think the neologism tag at least can be safely removed. I'd argue that the notability tag is also misapplied here, but we can give him a day or so to defend that one. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notability tag. Multiple independent reliable sources = notable. The tagger seems to be pushing some sort of agenda through these tags on a number of articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, just because it was me doesn't mean it is illegitimate. This is some girl's art project, a very nice art project, but still some girl's art project. The website is an extension of her myspace. The only reason this article is not an orphan is because the image has been use in a few other articles. This was not printed in Vanity Fair, it was covered in "Stick Shift: The Gay Car Blog", by a blogger who posts on vanity fair's website. This was not printed in Newsweek, it was covered in blog by some kid at Northwestern for Current, a "magazine written, edited and arted by college students, and produced in cooperation with Newsweek.". The third source is dead and fourth appears no be a no-name guide to Albany. Not exactly Andy Warhol here. Most damning of all, this article was nominated for deletion because of, anyone care to guess? Its questionable notability! And the vote to delete was unanimous. You can question my motives until the cows come home, this article may not be notable, I'm not the first editor who has thought so and informing readers of this possibility is hardly the diabolical scheme some of you are making it out to be. - Schrandit (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so yes, it wasn't in Newsweek -- it was in a magazine that Newsweek helps produce, with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands, and it appears on Newsweek.com. It wasn't in Vanity Fair, it's something Vanity Fair choose to have on VanityFair.com. The deletion request was some time before the documentary began going around, getting accepted for a number of festivals. The deletion approval was based on apparently a single reference, there are now more. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your motives would be much less in question if you didn't repeatedly tag the same page despite reliable sourcing. Yes, the article was deleted a year and a half ago for notability. Apparently no one bothered to do a simple Google news search at the time, as there are several reliable sources that pre-date the AFD. With the release of the documentary there are more. Otto4711 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a list of available sources (some are blogs, but many qualify as RS) on her site. APK that's not my name 04:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, once a documentary film is touring the film fests and written up in national media there is little question that it is indeed notable. -- Banjeboi 05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating sponsors[edit]

I removed the mention of the sponsor of Sundance and added the mention of HD Radio. Right now, what's referenced is VW and HD Radio, which are sourced from the extensive article on Evoke. The previous source was a local news station's coverage. According to emails with Erin, this write-up was inaccurate. While the previous sentence doesn't qualify as a source or citation, but the sentence I modified in the article is cited properly. --Philosophistry (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I think that maybe there should be a section on this page to point out that there are some people who have negative critiques of the Fagbug. The whole thing reads like a mash note or PR release from Erin. I know for a fact that there's a decent section of the LGBT community who are not ok with this, which is something that Erin acknowledges in her presentations and in the Fagbug film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.202 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually an article that has a controversy section also has reliable sources for the controversy.Popish Plot (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fagbug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090710124431/http://blog.newsweek.com:80/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/current/archive/2007/12/19/driven-by-desire-and-her-fag-bug.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]