Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles 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. The delete arguments are weak and did not seem to consider possible sources, so when compared with other arguments, delete should not be the outcome.

Between keeping and merging, the keep !votes are slightly more convincing as their elaboration is more complete (i.e. not simply stating the !vote only) and more of the keep !votes considered the additional sources that had been presented. Considering the discussion has already been relisted twice, there is no need to prolong it further.

However, there is no prejudice against merging if a consensus of merging is achieved in a merger discussion later. As AFD is not intended for deciding between keeping and merging, the arguments for merging presented here may be apparently weaker. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 04:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Los Angeles Review

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite a nearly 20 year existence, can not find reliable sources that show it to be notable. Slywriter (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Worldcat says that this literary review is held by 16 libraries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This needs in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not evident. I think its publisher, Red Hen Press, is notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, or alternatively, merge to Red Hen Press. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The official site's Alexa global ranking stands at almost #2,000,000 (which is very low). Cordially, History DMZ (HQ ) † (wire ) 09:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The publication sounds intriguing, but its lack of notability makes it better suited for a literary magazine Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Katherine Manderfield is an LAist contributor who has written numerous pieces for them. The article notes that The Los Angeles Review (LAR) has the motto Divergent, West Coast Literature and has the masthead "something disturbing, something alive, something of the possibility of what it could be to be human in the 21stcentury". LAR is edited by Red Hen Press founder Kate Gale. It publishes pieces on "poetry, fiction, nonfiction, book reviews, and translations". Pablo Neruda, Lydia Davis, Amy Gerstler, and Barry Yourgrau have contributed to LAR. The journal devotes every issue to a writer based on the west coast of the United States. The most recent issue was dedicated to Ishmael Reed. The journal has two issues every year. It can be read online and can be purchased for $15 from Red Hen Press.  The article notes, "The Los Angeles Review embodies our dowdy earnest side. There are pieces by Benjamin Saltman, Patricia Hampl, Deena Metzger on one hand, but there also is a burst of new Angeleno voices with Apache/Comanche, Filipino, Argentine, African backgrounds. They aren’t as polished as the voices in Black Clock, but they bring their own charge. Ryan Tranquilla’s “On Getting a Second Tattoo at the Tenth Anniversary of My First” or “Zilchy-Poo” by Anonymous reveal a process more than a finished product."  The article notes, "Of all three journals, the Los Angeles Review (a subscription for the annual publication is $14), feels the most sprung out of L.A.'s city/desert terrain. Anyone who has been on the L.A. literary scene for any length of time will recognize some of the stalwarts -- Molly Bendall, Greg Goldin, Suzanne Lummis, Deena Metzger, David St. John. Gale, who had been publishing political nonfiction, fiction, poetry and memoir under the Red Hen imprint, wanted to do something special to mark the organization’s 10th year." The article provides five paragraphs about the Los Angeles Review (including quotes from Gale).</li> <li> The article notes that the Los Angeles Review was founded eight years ago, was founded and is edited by Kate Gale, the managing editor of Red Hen Press. The journal is published semiannually. It devotes every issue to a writer based in the area. The journal's Spring 2012 issue was dedicated to John Rechy, a Los Angeles novelist. The article notes, "given the plethora of cultures flourishing within the city, the magazine's vision naturally extends beyond Southern California".</li> <li> The article mentions the Los Angeles Review in one sentence. The article notes, "In addition, its biannual Los Angeles Review has become one of the most widely read literary anthologies on the West Coast."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Los Angeles Review to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * There is enough material to support a standalone article. Notability says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources cover the Los Angeles Review "directly and in detail" even though they are on the shorter side. If editors do not consider the sourcing to be significant enough to establish notability, Los Angeles Review should be merged to Red Hen Press per Deletion policy. Pinging, , , , , and to consider the sources. Cunard (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Modified to insert "not". Cunard (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification and procedural question. One, I assume your sentence is "...do NOT consider..." Two, I haven't reviewed sources yet but if they do indeed establish notability, presumably I can NOT "withdraw, add the sources as references and stub template" unless all other viewpoints are also moved to keep aka no super vote for keep as nominator. Obviously nothing precludes improving the article during the process. Slywriter (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the correction. I've revised my comment. My hope is that you (and the other AfD participants) review the AfD sources I have listed:<ol><li>If you think the sources provide enough coverage to establish notability, I hope you will withdraw your nomination and support keeping. Based on my reading of the first item in Speedy keep, you can withdraw (but not necessarily close) your AfD nomination at any time, even when other editors have supported deletion. The withdrawn AfD cannot be closed if, as is the case here, editors "other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected". If you withdraw the AfD, the AfD will remain open until all editors have supported retention or until an admin closes the AfD after seven days have passed.</li><li>If you do not think the sources provide enough coverage to establish notability, I hope you will support a merge to Red Hen Press per Deletion policy. I think a merge would improve Wikipedia.</li></ol>Cunard (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge to Red Hen Press as an alternative to deletion.TH1980 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting a merge as an alternative to deletion. I hope AfD participants can comment on the sources I found and whether they are enough to meet Notability. The sources address Los Angeles Review "directly and in detail" (quoting from Notability's definition of "significant coverage") but they are on the shorter side. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge I considered a withdraw thanks to the persuassive words of and his dilligence in finding sources, but think a merge to Red Hen Press makes the most sense. The sources do establish notability, but the issue remains that the article will be brief and likely sit in an indefinite stub state. Policy may lean towards the stub but I question whether it is in the interests of a reader. In short, anything but delete is the proper course Slywriter (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to allow further discussion of sources presented by Cunard

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Red Hen Press. -KH-1 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:SIGCOV and other relevant guidelines. versacespace  talk to me  03:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. It clearly has notability to stand on its own, and readers can access Red Hen Press easily enough through a wikilink from the article. Just because an article will be short is not a reason to delete it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument by . Clearly notable and can stand on its own, will pass WP:GNG.SunDawn (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as Cunard found good coverage that suffices to GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.