Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Art 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Harvard Art Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently created student-run magazine. No coverage in independent third party sources, so notability not established under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  05:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've removed quite a bit of the article that talked about the people that worked on it. There's really no need to mention every single person and what class year they were, as well as what they graduated with. Unless that editor was overwhelmingly notable, it's just sort of superfluous to the article and unnecessary. I've also removed the long list of each volume, as that's not necessary either unless one volume was overwhelmingly notable as well. I've also noted that the current run of the magazine is not the original run and that it was originally started back in the 60s, something that the previous incarnation of the article was sort of jumbled about. This does make it more likely that sources exist, so I'll see what I can find. Just dropping a note here in case the editors of the page stop in as well as to let any other editors know to look in the page's history for the original version, although all of those sources were predominantly primary or otherwise trivial sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So far it's slim pickings, although I do note that the original run was used as a reference in some books: It's not a ton of sources, so I'm not sure it would pass as something that is heavily used as a reference.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The only sources are for the 1966-70 edition so we have to judge based on that. I don't see much in the way of notability: there is one solid source in the Boston Globe announcing first publication, but after that.. It would be great to find a home in another article for a merge/redirect but no idea where that would be. Possibly Harvard University Press for the old edition, but the new edition appears online only. Possibly create a new article devoted to all Harvard U student publications, there must be many and it would be an interesting/useful to list them with each getting its own section. There would be enough sources for Harvard University student publications. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:18, 30 November 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.