Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Review


 * 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   keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a "per nom" !vote. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Review

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable university literary magazine. Unable to find any independent coverage, much less sigificant. Notability of some of its published writers is not inheritable. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep. The notability of literary magazines can generally be measured by the notability of their contributors -- that's not an "inherited" sort of notability, but the way the world works.  Literary magazines aren't written about much in popular media, but more often in the specialized literary media that aren't well-represented online. Google Books shows more than 2800 hits, an astonishing number, more than pop culture subjects like Batman, Bob Dylan, and Benny Hill, and even if only 10% of the hits are relevant and substantive that's more than enough to establish notability.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That 20k drops down to 691 if you exclude the University of Chicago itself from being the author and ensure that the text "University of Chicago" appears, and even if that seems like a lot, a great many number of them seem to be bare mentions or citations, or acknowledgements, not any in-depth coverage. Despite your assertion, I don't quite see how this isn't a simple case of WP:INHERIT. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Wolfowitz and per my own knowledge about chicago reveiw and its existance.--Judo112 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't really given an argument. No one is doubting the existence of this publication, but its notability, which isn't inherently accrued by its having published a number of famous writers in the past. Publications must be independently notable in and of themselves to warrant inclusion Wikipedia, and this is primarily built off of "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources" (which I have been unable to locate), not "what you know". Wolfowitz's argument amounts to a bit of WP:INHERIT and WP:GHITS, as I have explained above. If a book isn't notable just because its author is, then a magazine which was only in small part contributed to by notable writers definitely isn't notable unless there's significant external coverage. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempts from the nominator to change peoples opinions is often pointless and leads to unnecessary meta-discussions. I still stand with my decision.--Judo112 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the chicago reviews webiste on the External links gives this article a minimum of notability needed to establish a keep för the article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How so?&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep With all respect to the nominator, The Chicago Review has a longstanding repuation as a major journal. It's won 3 O. Henry Awards and works that first appeared in the CR have been republished in the Best Ameican Short Stories, Best American Essays, Best American Poetry on many occasions--I have added a few examples, but a quick scan of these volumes reveals many more. Most serious short-fiction writers would describe the Chicago Review as a "Top-25" journal. It happens to have a long and storied history, which I am hopeful that some editor will compile from other sources and contribute to the article. Vartanza (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those awards are for stories published within the Review, not for the Review itself and do not confer notability onto the magazine that published them (especially considering it's only won three, versus almost 200 for The New Yorker). Despite the name of the list, not every magazine that publishes an award-winning story is notable; the magazine itself must be the significant subject of multiple independent and reliable sources for it to pass the WP:GNG. If it is truly has "longstanding reputation as a major journal", this should be easy to verify with outside sources. While the references you added would make excellent sources for verifying information in the article, they can't be used to verify notability because they both come from the University of Chicago itself. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I assume that the nominator is acting in good faith, but even a cursory study of the relevant source material reveals copious third-party references. I have included a few regarding the early influence of the CR and the 1959 controversy.  That should certainly push us across the notability threshold, although it would be generous of someone to expand the article based on the widespread discussion in nearly all major sources on the Beat Movement, bios of its leading participants, etc. Vartanza (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.