Talk:Shit Creek Review

[Untitled]
This entry was nominated for deletion on the grounds that the topic lacked notability and violated Geogre's Law.

On notablility: "In general, the text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person [orin this case entity] is notable" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I believe the article clearly does that already, but I will add more material to that effect. One criterion posited for 'notability' is 'The person has demonstrable wide name recognition': "Shit Creek review" currently yields 2680 Google hits, and is widely referred to and discussed on online poetry forums. Furthermore it provides pdf archives of its editions and has a stated policy of producing an annual print edition. It includes articles and poetry by well-known published poets and writers such as A.E. Stallings, R.S. Gwynn, Tim Murphy, Alan Sullivan, Rhina Espaillat, Lee Passarella, Wendy Videlock, Robert Clawson and many others. It is frequently cited as a publishing credential by authors both online and in print. As to the comment 'Only an online magazine': is it then proposed to eliminate the entire category 'Literature Websites'?

Addressing the issue of Geogre's Law: 'Geogre's Law: A law attributed to User:Geogre and most frequently referred to in Articles for deletion. Paraphrased, the law states that there exists a strong correlation between the lack of proper capitalization of a person's name in the title of a biographical article, and the failure of the subject of that article to satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biographies.'--If this is a fair summary, it must apply to the title: presumably because that is in quotation marks. I would appreciate some advice on how to edit the title to remove the quotation marks.

Update: I think I rectified this title issue by using 'Move Page' to move the entire article to a title without quotation marks.

Marmosite 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I went in and added REF tags to some of the external links. Also, our site now has an Author Index, which links directly to work we have published by the notable poets mentioned above, and I've included that in the references.

The "notability" issue should be considered resolved. Can we delete that silly warning now? I've seen entries for other poetry journals in Wikipedia that cite fewer references than we do. I suspect this article was "nominated for deletion" not because SCR is not notable, but because of someone's kneejerk objection to its irreverent-sounding name. (Actually the name is what drew me to the journal in the first place. It's light-heartedly subversive, and convenient for the editors, too, in that it tends to repel the fustier poets. At the same time, it's a "serious" journal, not in the somber, humorless sense, but in that we publish fine work.)

There is also an "orphan" tag that presents something of a Catch-22. When I try to link to the Shit Creek Review from other articles, I keep getting nasty messages telling me I'm engaging in "vandalism." I assume this is because the name of the journal has a naughty word in it. For example, I tried to link from the entry for Arthur Rimbaud (RIMBAUD, for heaven's sake, not Dr. Seuss!) to a Rimbaud translation by Craig Raine published in SCR, and it reversed my edit. I got the same result when I tried to link from Powow River Poets; a look at our Author Index shows that we have published many of its members.

I have added a link from Denise Duhamel to a literary essay on a poem of hers which appeared in our latest issue, and that link appears to be intact. (The article includes the poem, reprinted in its entirety, with her permission.) I also see that Maryann Corbett has included a link to SCR in her Essays section. There are also links from Tim Murphy and John Whitworth (poet), who have published numerous poems in SCR.

Rosekelleher (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

-

I would also like to note that "shit creek review" no longer yields 2680 hits but 67800 on Google.

Rosekelleher (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

-

I went ahead and deleted the "Notability" and "Orphan" tags, since I don't believe they belong here. Before doing that I tried to ascertain whether that was permissible, but I confess I found the web of arcane rules and procedures too confusing. Who decides whether something is "notable"? How many links to an article must there be before it is no longer an "orphan"? I don't know. All I know is, if this article is deleted, it won't be because I didn't try to comply.

Rosekelleher (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)