Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyanthos (magazine)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Polyanthos (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be a short-lived regional literary magazine. Nothing much on the page which suggests it had lasting notability, i don't see much else. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Massachusetts. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: For one thing, the nom's failed to express a valid deletion ground. There is nothing, in fact, about a magazine being literary, regional OR short-lived that's a prima facie deletion ground.  Further, notability is not temporary.  To quote WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."  Such coverage is established in this well-sourced article.  Finally, when I see vague phrasings in a nomination such as "appears to be" or "i [sic] don't see much else," it leads me to wonder whether a nom has performed due diligence as per WP:BEFORE.   Ravenswing      15:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see these discussions as a way that we can all establish a consensus on the topic together. As it happens, I looked but could not find references which show notability, which I took to be because it was a regional and short-lived publication. Perhaps others can find something to discuss, in which case the consensus may well show that I'm wrong.
 * In my view you haven't supplied sources or a reason to !keep which to me looks like WP:ILIKEIT.
 * If I'm wrong, kindly show how and why so we can have an actual discussion about it. JMWt (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That you haven't advanced a valid deletion ground is rationale enough, but that I believe it to be a well-sourced article is a reason to keep all of itself.   Ravenswing     18:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well we will have to agree to differ: brief and passing mentions do not meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable early American magazine. In addition to the citations already in the article, I found sources referencing this magazine in the book Magazines and the Making of America Modernization, Community, and Print Culture, 1741–1860 by Heather A. Haveman, 2020, Princeton University Press; in the scholarly article "Buckingham's Musical Commentaries in Boston" in New England Quarterly. Sep1978, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p333-347; in Connecticut Biographical Dictionary by Caryn Hannan, 2008, State History; Publishers Weekly, Volume 119, Part 1, 1931; and other books and journals. In short there's enough coverage of this magazine to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I updated the formatting of the article and added the citation from Publishers Weekly, which states that the incident with the father and mother of Edgar Allan Poe "merits at least footnote immortality" for the magazine. That's as close as a century-old source can get to confirming a subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing substantial coverage in independent RS as per the WP:GNG - several of the references on the page are passing mentions (and I note that I've found others which simply say that the publication reprinted something from elsewhere). The Poe story is interesting but is from a memoir by the publisher so not independent. The Publishers Weekly is independent and whilst apparently forward-thinking in terms of usability for a future encyclopedia (describing something as an eternal footnote), is a passing mention in a trade publication in an article about the publisher (the format of the reference on the WP page is not great, the direct link to the source on IA is here ) and is based on an anecdote in the memoir above as far as I can tell. It's not nothing, but it isn't substantial coverage either. JMWt (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm seeing a ton of sources and references to this magazine and I've now added additional citations, plus more info, to the article. After additional research on this topic, I'm even more convinced the cumulative weight of all of the sources referencing the magazine proves notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I admit that I am not able to review most of the sources here (and would not have discovered them with a Google search) but seeing that SouthernNights has found this magazine listed in a handful of bibliographies covering the time frame, and was able to add enough information to fill out the article, I accept this as notable. Lamona (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2023 (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.