Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunes 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. Majority of editors, arguing from policy. Wily D 09:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dunes Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is about a literary magazine, Dunes Review (DR for short) from North Michigan. It has currently 16 references. I will go through each one of them, the numbers refer to the version at the moment of filing this AFD. 1/ Short radio item on a local station. DR is mentioned in-passing. 2/ In-passing mention of the magazine on poets.org. 3/ Short item on a poet on the website of the Michigan State University Libraries, mentioning that she has published in DR. 4/ Short biographical item on a poet including DR in a list of magazines where this person has published. 5/ A few lines in a local newspaper (Traverse City Record-Eagle) on a "Dunes Review launch party". 6/ Another item in another local newspaper, the Grand Traverse Insider. I cannot locate this online, but given its title, I don't think this provides in-depth coverage of DR. 7/ WorldCat entry for the magazine. WorldCat covers anything that has an ISSN or ISBN, so inclusion in it does not constitute any evidence of notability. WorldCat indicates that not a single library in Michigan (or even the whole of the United States) holds this journal. 8/ An item in the Glen Arbor Sun, a local freely-distributed magazine appearing 10 times per year, written by on of DR's editors (Holly Spaulding). 9/ DR itself. 10/ DR itself. 11/ Website of one of the sponsoring organisations. 12/ Website of the other sponsoring organization. 13/ Short item on a poet including DR in a list of magazines where this person has published. 14/ Short item on a poet who has published in DR, mentioning that this person won a National Endowment for the Arts grant. 15/ Another brief item in the Record Eagle on a "Dunes Review launch party". 16/ Another item in the Glen Arbor Sun. From the title and the snippet cited in the article, it does not appear to provide in-depth coverage of DR.

Summarizing the above: there are no sources that provide any in depth-coverage of the magazine (and certainly none that would be independent of it) or even anything more than an in-passing mention of it. There is no indication that WP:GNG (or any other guideline that might apply) has been met. In the absence of reliable sources establishing notability: Delete.

Note: the explanation for this unusually long and detailed nomination can be found on the talk page (and its history) of this article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A simple Google search would have shown that this subject is placed in multiple libraries:
 * 20 copies in 3 local libraries.
 * 19 copies in the district library.
 * 2 copies at MSU.
 * 4 copies accepted into the Library of Michigan.

--David Holmer (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note to Closing Administrator
I am taking back my offer to work on this article if its deleted. Wikipedia's pages, policies, and environment has brought out the worst in me. And, I definitely do NOT like the person that I have become. It was been brought to my attention that what I have experienced over the past ten days is normal. Your editors refer to themselves as having elephant-skin and that the disputes I was experiencing was with the NICE Wikipedians. I have spent over 90 percent of my time in distracting, petty discussions about rules and policies. Your editors gripe about the poor citations, but then do not offer citations themselves or give me the time to input all the sources that I have here. Even your editors, who say that this article is not up to notability standards, agree that it has improved with the dozen or so citations that I was able to squeeze in while being constantly distracted by their quibbling. They bicker like children, asking why I haven't put in more citations then. To be quite honest, I have left them out because I have stopped contributing. I added back what was there and could be retrieved by your archives. But this place does not deserve these contributions. I apologize to Justice007, the sole other editor that has worked diligently on this article besides myself, for holding back. You know this article is notable and if the administrator sees what we see than it will be included. The potential is there like JoannaSerah said, and the sources are there as I have said. But, to me, this is nothing more than a bunch of people who sit on a computer and have to google everything to read or verify. Well, if that is the source verification process then this IS a search engine. If wikipedia does accept other sources then it needs to work on its policies and people so that it doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth. --David Holmer (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No kidding. The "discussion" about this magazine amounts to people using Dunes Review's page as a place to toot horns about how great their knowledge of WP is... at the cost of the people who support and work hard on this publication--not to mention the communities DR serves. All this banter about these topics (are lit mags with national figures notable? are newspapers and radio good sources?--come on) is nonsense and has no point. Yes, some people need to fill a quota of so-many-WP-entries-per-day to feel good about themselves. This whole matter is a case of that.196.219.219.130 (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What you experienced is not nice wikipedians. Most of us actually look into the sources, even if it takes a while to turn on our speakers and listen! --64.134.174.205 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the current references come close to the in-depth coverage needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep not all the references are the best but the notability bar appears (less or more weakly) to be passed. And notable magazine contributors are not a bad thing, too. Cavarrone (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So which ones are "the best"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2012 (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.