Talk:Bustle (magazine)

Magazines Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Candidate for deletion[edit]

Bustle isn't a relevant website. Please get rid of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.115.241 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bullshit?[edit]

This is just a random website in the ocean of the internet. It is neither useful nor informative how many "visitors" it has. Delete this trashy "article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.138.138 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential with Context[edit]

Bustle is not the most relevant website. However, I do think it is important to add more context about the type of articles the company is producing since its content is reaching a large audience. An array of women readers use articles to form opinions and stay up to date on current eventsCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. This makes Bustle more influential than it first appears. Alyssaamoreno (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation[edit]

My Notes] - The article is great at providing a glimpse of the company, but I think it can improve by providing a more holistic perspective of the Bustle Magazine company! This stub article has eight cited sources that all work but most of their information is not rephrased in the article. The article strictly states facts about the start of the company without providing detail on the types of articles it provides and what audiences this is reaching. Personally, I think it is important to include this unbiased information since Bustle is a major source for news and politics for women. They are also one of the content building sites that's main focus os creating an abundance of content. The comments on the Talk page for this article very clearly wanted this article to be taken down. The users to don't recognize Bustle as being important enough to deserve an entire Wikipedia article about them. This article discusses this topic differently than we do in class because it does not explore the effects of having a tool like this. Like I have stated above, it only lists a few facts. Thus the article lacks context and information for its readers to leave with a clear understanding of the site's purpose. There needs to be more information about why a site like Bustle might exist in today's media and what audience it is reaching. This is especially since Bustle posts a mix of beauty, news, and political articles. Alyssaamoreno (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

corrections about Mic and layoffs[edit]

Article includes sentence "Bustle Digital Group purchased Mic on November 28, 2018 after it laid off the majority of Mic's staff." The 2nd half of the sentence caught my attention (i think Bustle wouldn't have the power to lay-off Mic people BEFORE buying Mic), so I checked the Digiday reference and ref doesn't say who did the laying-off. Digiday ref says "The vast majority of its staff — some 60-70 people — have been laid off, with only members of the site’s branded content operation and a handful of product staffers, headed to Bustle Media Group." I found a more-specific ref (says who laid-off the staff) https://www.vox.com/2018/11/29/18117787/mic-layoffs-staff-bustle-facebook which says "Mic is laying off the majority off its staff while the digital publisher works on a deal to sell the remainder of its assets to Bustle Digital Group." (ie. Mic laid-off its own employees) Also, the Digiday ref doesn't say WHEN Bustle bought Mic, and links to article about "bustle-near-deal-to-buy-mic". https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/bustle-acquires-mic-1203051696/ is more helpful with "Bustle Digital Group has acquired Mic ..." (published Nov 29, 2018). Given what those new refs say i think WikiP's article sentence should be re-worded to something like "On Nov 29, 2018, Mic CEO announced a layoff of most of Mic's staff while working on a deal to sell Mic. Later that day, a Bustle rep confirmed that Bustle Digital Group had acquired Mic." --EarthFurst (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

inputmag.com now a brand of Bustle Digital Group[edit]

Possible update for Bustle_(magazine)#Bustle_Digital_Group. Bustle_Digital_Group seems to have purchased inputmag.com. Going to an Input page (such as https://www.inputmag.com/contact ) and clicking on icon in top-right gives you dropdown menu which says "Input © 2022 BDG Media, Inc. All rights reserved." at bottom (of dropdown menu) with links including "ABOUT" which links to https://www.bdg.com/ , "TERMS" which links to https://www.bdg.com/terms , and more BDG links. https://www.bdg.com/brands includes Input in their Culture & Innovation brands. --EarthFurst (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]