Talk:Freshmen (magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Being #1 in its field establishes prima-facie notability

The fact that the magazine's 'freshman of the year' is CITED in several other articles (such as Billy Brandt) is proof that the magazine has a major impact in the field.Ryoung122 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking a talk page is NOT a discussion

I find it highly offensive that some have chosen to delete this multiple times, misusing the 'speedy delete' power, without so much as a discussion. In fact, I was NOT the 'only person' to have created this page. However, how can we know with repeated blankings? I should note that this is a mainstream-gay-porn magazine, probably #1 in its genre...08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a 'Deletion Review'

I will be requesting a 'deletion review' in this case.Ryoung122 08:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the reason for deletion has been 'notability not asserted'...which considering the fact that the article creators (multiple persons, multiple times) are not connected to the publisher, I find incredulous. Perhaps the real reason is discrimination.Ryoung122 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hits on Google: 21,000+:

Results 1 - 10 of about 21,200 for "Freshmen Magazine".

Ryoung122 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales rank in 2001 (top 1000):

Product Details Amazon Sales Rank: #630 in Magazine Subscriptions Released on: 2001-11-23 Format: Magazine Subscription

Ryoung122 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the 'old' material was mirrored on answers.com:

Freshmen (magazine) Freshmen is an American erotic magazine published monthly by Specialty Publications and founded in 1991.

Content Freshmen's target audience is homosexual and bisexual men; the magazine contains nude male photography, erotic fiction, video reviews and other adult features. The magazine specializes in young but not twinkish men, primarily 18 to 25 but some to age 30. The magazine also features models from Bel Ami, Falcon Entertainment and other major porn studios.

Specialty Publications also publishes Men magazine, which is in the same format but portrays men aged 25 to 40.

Freshman of the Year Once a year, an annual vote is held and the winner is featured as "Freshman of the Year." Many fledgling porn stars have been featured here, and have gone on to greater success (including Sebastian Bonnet and Roman Heart).

2003 - Marcus Allen 2004 - Sebastian Bonnet 2005 - Josh Elliot 2006 - Roman Heart 2007 - Zack Randall

External links Freshmen website Specialty Publications

Reasons for Article Restoration

Greetings,

This article has existed in the past and apparently has been 'controversial' to some, although in reality it is a mainstream-gay-porn magazine and generally recognized as #1 in the sub-field of 'young men' (its older companion magazine, 'Men', is #1 overall). Perhaps the controversy stems from people searching for articles on 'freshmen' and chancing upon this article by accident. It should be noted, however, that the rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia is not self-promotion or advertising. Sometimes, a mainstream-media case (like the Timothy J. Boham murder mystery) will result in a 'crossover' of interest. However, the main rationale for the article is the same rationale for ANY Wikipedia article: to provide a quick-reference answer to a question that any inquistive reader would like to know, namely 'What's that'? Surely most non-gay persons haven't heard of it, but it is one of the top 1,000 magazines in the English-speaking world in terms of circulation.

Consider, for a moment, that several of the porn stars featured in this magazine's 'Freshmen of the Year' contest have gone on to fame (Roman Heart) or infamy (Marcus Allen). Thus the magazine is notable for more than one reason.

We can also check and find that there are articles on magazines that are much more obscure than this one. Just check the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_magazines

Thus, we have a track record of these articles existing and no reason for deletion other than vague comments such as 'the website doesn't assert notability.'

Some that have suggested this be deleted have stated that the website itself doesn't assert 'notability'. That's not what those web sites are there for; they are there to sell magazines. However, Wikipedia's interest should not be in what assertions of notability are made or not made, but how the article relates to third-party interaction. I note it appears in over 21,000 Google hits (even using "Freshmen Magazine"). I myself found the article, not start the article.

I am re-creating the article because it appears the prior deletions were made without an informed discussion. I am all for 'consensus-building' but deleting something without informing anyone is hardly an attempt at building consensus.Ryoung122 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 09:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This has been deleted in the past via speedy A7. However, this is a printed publication not a website, and speedy does not apply to magazines per WP:CSD. (Nor does D4, except after an XfD), If anyone wants to delete it, please do not delete it out of process, but take it to AfD. DGG (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is still needed

But what the article needs is better sourcing--the notability depend on Gay.com, and the item there is a clear piece of public relations. Someone, somewhere, in some actual publication, needs to have talked about it. Possibly one of the sources talking about the notable models also talks about the magazine DGG (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I just closed the DRV as moot - there is nothing to discuss. This version clearly asserts notability and there is no other clear csd that might apply. As this article has never been to AFD, I strongly advise any admin considering deleting this to take it there. I have performed a history undelete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm an historian and so having the history restored makes it easier. For example, we can see that, contrary to what some have said, I didn't start the article. The first article incarnation was:

Revision as of 20:25, 7 October 2005 (edit) Matthewbreen (Talk | contribs)

2nd incarnation: Revision as of 10:54, 14 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Cannonmc (Talk | contribs)

We are currently on the 5th incarnation. The article has been 'speedied' several times but there has never been a vote. Admittedly, the article started out as a stub and was not properly expanded. However, given that Wikipedia has LOTS of articles on pornstars, it makes sense to have an article on a magazine that several pornstar articles reference to (i.e. Roman Heart, Billy Brandt, Timothy J Boham, etc).

I also suspect that the number of deletions may have something to do with the fact that the title 'Freshmen' might lead to a lot of errant hits (unlike a more controversial and marginal magazine, such as "Bound and Gagged") from non-gay users. However, this article doesn't really go into graphic pictorial or verbal detail, and this magazine is the most mainstream of the 'young gay male' magazines. Thus, I don't think a lot of people will be offended unless they choose to be overly sensitive.

Later 'speedy' deletions were done that erroneously characterized this as 'just a website.' Instead, it's really a magazine. The website 'mirrors' the magazine, and so is used as a source.Ryoung122 10:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of a Speedy

Checking some previous versions, it is interesting to note that the article was poorly written at one point. Comments like these below:

It is available in some major university libraries, including those at U.C.L.A., Cornell, Central CT State, and M.S.U.

Talk about understating things a bit!

Certainly didn't help. However, the article now better-states notability: it is #1 in its genre (young gay men). I note that this is actually a 'mainstream-porn' magazine; not the type of marginal publication such as "Barely Legal" (found at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch). This magazine is published by the same company that owns www.gay.com.Ryoung122 10:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick McKay

I'm surprised there's no Wikipedia article on Dick McKay...there's one in French:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_McKay Ryoung122 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freshmen (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]