Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature


 * 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP without prejudice to renomination later. - Philippe 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature

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

Unsourced article on a minor academic journal with fewer than ten issues published, 35 unique google hits indicates that lack of sources in the article is paralleled by lack of sources in the real world. Probably a bit too specialist to get much attention. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete, publication appears to be non-notable, perhaps due to its rather niche nature. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; as much as I hate to see verifiable information deleted, this journal is only held in six university libraries according Worldcat (5 in the USA and 1 in Aus), and I cant see any independent coverage of it, so this Wikipedia article is essentially only a directory listing. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's true that this journal contained the first collection of critical essays on Chuck Palahniuk, then we should at least mention it somewhere. However, I haven't been able to prove that. Zagalejo^^^ 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Academic journals by their very nature gather little attention from the WWW. However, this looks like a rising star. I see no reason to take away interesting facts from Wikipedia; it's notable enough. OptimistBen (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete while i sympathize with the view above, there are still journals that succeed and journals that do not. There's no way to guess it's a start until it has actually risen. as an free online-only publication, we can't look for library holdings or subscriptions, so the usual ways of telling do not work. DGG (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * comment-Not that google scholar is the end all be all of the web, but Chuck Palahniuk's articles in this journal don't show up there. That doesn't mean the author of the article made that fact up, not does it make it any less of a fact, but just pointing that out.24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do: . Note that the articles are about Palahniuk's work, and not written by Palahniuk himself. Zagalejo^^^ 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ten issues is actually reasonably impressive for a journal, and this is published out of a quite significant department. Keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (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.