Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Pantagruel


 * 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. The analysis of the sources shows it comes up short on N so the consensus of this discussion is that this does not meet our inclusion criteria Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The New Pantagruel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this blog with a two year run fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. The purported NY Times recognition mentioned in the second paragraph (as of the Afd insertion) gave me pause (link here). Upon reading the NY Times article, though, it turns out to be not much more than a mention of the website as one of several examples of a phenomenon without any discussion of the website itself--far too minimal to constitute even one instance of significant/non-trivial coverage coverage, let alone the multiple required. I can't think of any other route through which it meets notability. Novaseminary (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a 4-5 year run, depends when you start counting. The founders began working on it as Re:Generation Quarterly was in its last year. It was a carryover from that in some ways. Googling TNP shows its place among certain significant ongoing discussions of religion, culture and politics on webzines and blogs. If you look at the contributors and editors, and their ongoing careers, many of them are still within the mainstream of conservative reformed, evangelical, and catholic publications of this type. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * — 67.22.193.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yeah, 5 years online, 3 years of producing articles: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://newpantagruel.com And it's been the subject of an MA thesis that argues TNP had significance although the original editors and contributors might have found this a bit absurd. Why not ask them and some of the other people and publications about TNP's impact or significance? See the list: http://web.archive.org/web/20071129231954/www.newpantagruel.com/about.php While Fr. Neuhaus is no longer living, David Goldman  at First Things used to correspond with the TNP eds when he was "Spengler" at the Asia Times Online.  Goldman, like many other people, learned of Stegall and TNP thought Dreher's Crunchy Cons book, which gave attention to both.  Jonah Goldberg and others at the NRO spent a month debating Stegall and Dreher on a special site  which NRO has since deleted. (Goldberg hated and continues to hate the whole anti-neocon young crunchy theocon stuff, or whatever you call it.) Dreher would be a good guy to ask about TNP, obviously.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.193.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Asking people for their take on the importance of an organization is not something we do on Wikipedia; it violates WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on what we call reliable sources] ([[WP:RS). That is not to say that any particular person is or is not reliable, but we don't do the kind of original research that reporters do. We leave it to them (reporters, academic journals, government statistics, etc.) to do th e original research, then summarize it on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then you can read their testimonials on the archived "about" page. The citations and people mentioned above--a book, eds of other publications, the ongoing careers of the contribs, and the thesis are pretty good creds. You can download the first chunk of the thesis for free, which argues the significance and notability of TNP which had to be justified to a committee of religion and am studies profs at a state university... Have you checked that out? I can't think of any other "blogs" that without any money ran a publication with so many academics and others with serious creds -- and just good writing anyway. Too bad the visual art has been lost. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To be relevant for WP:N purposes, the sources need to be independent of the subject. Novaseminary (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and many of them are in the comments above now. Check the thesis as well, since it spends its opening chapter making the case for significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Caleb Stegall.  Although this article goes into excessive detail, it looks like there might be a few sentences that could be constructively added to the article about its founder.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a strong objection to that since there does seem to have been one person (him) driving the site. I would be concerned with redirecting it to a particular person's article if several WP:N people had the same level of input (But several notable people having input into something is more likely to make that thing notable for its own article anyway). Novaseminary (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that idea? Stegall and about 3-5 others at various times were actively involved with its production, as editors, to say nothing of the contributors and forum flies. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment From the article itself (of course it is unsourced, so take it for what it is worth): "Caleb Stegall was tNP's editor-in-chief for the duration of the journal's existence." I am still fine deleting it, since the blog fails WP:WEB. But, I would not object to a redirect per WP:R. As an aside, I have no idea whether you were or not, but if you (67.22.193.136) were associated with the blog or its editors, please take a look at WP:COI. In addition, you might also want to take a look at Afd for more on how to most constructively engage in these deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not unsourced. Look at the webarchives. Stegall was clearly the ed in chief the whole way. Every publication that has an editor in chief has only one, but that does not imply they are the primary force behind it. That is a very contrived and false crypto-objection--really a biased assertion you made, that it was a "blog" with essentially a single author. That willful disregard for objective, sourced fact calls your objectivity and motivations into question. The thesis and references it supplies and the Dreher book alone satisfy the first notability criterion. The third is arguably satisfied by the fact that things in TNP were republished in notable books, magazines, and its authors were concurrently editors, contributors and authors involved with the other more mainstream publications TNP was in dialogue with... That distinguishes TNP from most blogs or webzines. Keep in mind too it always had a marginal identity and mission, to critique and be outside the mainstream of its logical peers. This too is covered in the thesis. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody else is mentioned in the article as being a driving force behind the blog. And only one other "person" is named as an author or editor, and that was a nom de plume (Fr. Jape), according to the article. The limited RS coverage there is seems to refer to it as Stegall's blog or the like. For example, the New York Times article – the only RS cited in the article-- notes that he was its founder and goes on to discuss him briefly (if not the blog). I understand the blog had multiple authors and editors. Don’t get me wrong, I still prefer to delete the article without a redirect. I was merely indicating that I do not have a strong objection to redirecting this article to the former EIC/founder of the blog.   As for the thesis, was the thesis published? Has it ever been cited? The author indicates in the beginning his relationship with a writer for the blog and its editor (and notes on page 4: "Though lack of time kept me from substantial criticism more than any other factors, I believe I made the right decision to prioritize an appreciative reading over a critical one..."). He also writes on page 7 that the blog "was just a blip on the cultural radar" and on page ten that "... TNP was not well known and has not been the subject of scholarly research...". He seems to be advocating a position (that this blog represents a notable example of a certain technique). How widely this has been accepted since the author published the MA thesis in June is unknown. Novaseminary (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are very odd assertions, coming from a standpoint of substantial ignorance. A thesis either is or is not a reliable source. Obviously it is one, and the academic and journalistic professions accept it as such. Your personal review of whether a specific thesis is reliable or not is quite irrelevant to the matter. To be correct, you would be impugning the judgment of a committee of 3-4 experts in religious studies and american studies at a state university. (The thesis describes a bit better who the driving forces were, but obviously there was a large contributor and editor base, along with the technical support such a production would require.) The thesis was published in the sense they all are: you can download them, get them on some type of media via interlibrary loan, etc. Has it been the basis for a printed book or article? One would have to research that question to find out. Quick web searches and a little reading are hardly an exhaustive quest for the available sources on any topic, especially if it's of academic interest. Universities and their media have been resistant to putting all their wares on the web for free. in, all that is irrelevant. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 67.x, my suggestion is aimed at preserving some of the content, and the edit history, of The New Pantagruel article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. It's quite marginal whether The New Pantagruel is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.  However, Stegall himself appears to be more clearly notable (again, in the Wikipedia sense), and there is an existing article about him, and that article needs to discuss The New Pantagruel anyway, so merge is a logical way to maintain information about The New Pantagruel on Wikipedia. Based on the discussion so far, it looks like the choices are going to be merger or deletion: which one do you think is better for the encyclopedia?--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

@Arxiloxos: Why is the choice deletion or merging? It appears keeping a separate entry is entirely legit. Novaseminary's complaint has been that TNP is insignificant and not notable, except as a pared down note on the Stegall entry. (Which itself contends TNP was significant and notable.) The Stegall entry brings up TNP to shed light on the context--political ideas, popular movements, etc.--in which Stegall is significant. People seeking more information about that would, in a more developed Wikipedia, find not only a TNP page but a whole group of related zines, such as the one referenced here, which was often compared to TNP and had some overlap in readers and writers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Doman A separate entry on TNP allows people to delve further into this context--which may be culturally marginal but not insignificant. TNP is representative not of Stegall alone but of a fractious, unusual, very mixed bag of people and ideas. It really deserves its own entry for that reason. Having an MA thesis written about it, and the ferment of ideas it represented from culturally conservative intellectuals...I think wikipedia can live with the small space it takes up. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete or merge Having reviewed the Wikipedia policies on deletion and merging, I see a consensus is required to delete or merge, at least from people offering logical, factual positions in line with Wikipedia policies. I say there is no consensus for either move. The Pantagruel entry passes the notability requirement for websites on at least one of the 3 criteria for sure, arguably two, so it shouldn't be deleted for lack of significance. It should not be merged with the Stegal entry because informative material would have to be cut radically, and its value is as a separate contextual source linked to Stegall, Dreher, and other contributors with Wikipedia pages of their own. It does need editing, since it appears to have been written without all the relevant sources and links, and before they went offline. Links to the publication itself ought to go to the wayback machine or simply be removed. There should be some examination of related publications TNP was in dialogue with to see if there are some relevant crosslinks to be made to help suggest the contours and diversity of latter day traditionalist conservative populism, tory anarchists, and the other monikers that tend to cluster together in these circles. There is definitely something to be said about Stegall, Dreher, and some of the others' coming together via TNP and cooperating thereafter--writing about each other and common concerns in different venues, from Dreher at NRO, BeliefNet and Dallas Morning News to Stegall, Larison and others at American Conservative, etc. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete or merge I agree with the comment above. A google of "New Pantagruel" yields 15,000 results. Results include: Georgetown U Prof. James V. Schall's publication list; faculty page of Georgetown U provost James D. O'Donnell; publication list of Westmont College Prof. Telford Work; the description of editor Jeremy Beer for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute book _American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia_; author description of Read Mercer Schuchardt's _You Do Not Talk About Fight Club_ (foreword by Chuck Palahniuk); the LinkedIn profile of Annie Frisbie, a WGA award nominated screenwriter; link to Frisbie's interview with Scott Derrickson on the official website of fantasy and horror fiction writer Clive Barker; a web link from Telos (journal); the Front Porch Republic blog; and the author page of "Sexless in the City" author Anna Broadway. Wikipedia users seeking more information on any of these references deserve a full stand-alone page. (full disclosure: I wrote a book review published in tNP.) --KJJ (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment None of those are RSs, and even if one or two are (for some purposes) all are trivial mentions or resume line listings, at best. Novaseminary (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Publishing Georgetown professors and having links from prominent academic journals are not guides to notability? Mentions on academic and popular book covers is not notable?


 * Comment Yes that is notability, and TNP has been cited, discussed, linked, etc. from reliable sources by the Wikipedia definition. It's hardly trivial where academic books are reviewed, BTW. If the people being reviewed thought it was a trivial blog, they wouldn't list it. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: the NYTimes source, recall: Notability"Notability is not temporary."


 * Another reason to keep the article: the usefulness of an independent article to the curious. How many people have read the article?


 * Notability is entirely temporary. Small magazines, clubs, salons, and other coteries especially pre-web are always temporary--it is part of their nature and historical interest. They are the tyhpe of things academics "discover" and argue over for their significance. How much something is remembered and by whom is one way to measure notability, but if people go about wiping out the memorials and records the aim is to efface the basis for notability--not a very neutral or informational move. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The continuing careers of several tNP alumni and contributors also suggets notability, at least in the niche area we are talking about. Daniel Larison and Michael B. Dougherty are both writers on their way up. Listing notable contributors is also SOP for articles in these categories, so that too would be an improvement.


 * The strict scrutiny being applied to the tNP article seems arbitrary. Its consistent application would also mean the deletion of many stub articles in the tNP-including Category:Literary journals.


 * I think enough reasonable doubt has been established to make a permanent stay against deletion. --KJJ (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability guidelines. Trivial mention in a NYT article, along with non-WP:RS citations just don't cut it.  Doesn't even meet the easier threshold of WP:WEB. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it does meet WP:WEB for reasons already noted. You are making an assertion without evidence or reasons. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't meet the "...subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The mentions are either not in reliable sources or too trivial/brief to matter.  Name-dropping is not sufficient. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news gives 9 results. One of them is from the New York Times.  Search for the word "Pantagruel" and you can see it mentioned there, as to why it existed, and some information about it.   D r e a m Focus  19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But the NY Times article (the same on mentioned in the nomination), is the best hit. That sort of brief mention is not the type of significant coverage we normally require. Novaseminary (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What "we"? 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure that I understand many of these claims. Caleb Stegall was not by any means the sole or primary contributor.  There were probably at least ten contributors, but this question is not a matter of guessing, as one only has to search archived web pages to see lists of contributors and editors, many of whom are associated with long-time websites such as Metaphilm, etc.   Reliable, researched sources such as an accepted Master's thesis and long-established web sites such as First Things are sources about tNP.  Need to consider tNP's significance, also, within the context of its brevity -- though it was relatively short-lived, it still garnered national notice.  Stegall was interviewed by national media outlets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.111.9 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * — 173.88.111.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   talk 23:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Deletion discussions where notability has been questioned are not difficult. It doesn't matter whether you think it's notable or I think it's not notable.  The only thing that matters is whether or not multiple reliable sources exist which are independent of the subject, and which cover the subject in a significant, non-trivial way.  Four things need to be satisfied:  multiple sources (more than 1), reliable sources (see WP:RS for a definition), independent sources (see WP:SEC), and significant, non-trivial coverage (see WP:GNG).  These requirements have not been satisfied for this article.  The number of Google hits you get for searching "The New Pantagruel" is not proof of notability.  If actual reliable sources come to light, I will gladly switch my !vote to Keep.  Until that time, however, the article must be deleted.  A partial merge and redirect might be appropriate, although it's unclear if any of the info in this article can actually be sourced.    Snotty Wong   gossip 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rescue - You are ignoring (as have others) the items such as the MA thesis about TNP, and the discussion of it in Dreher's book. But the interesting thing here about how the rules don't really apply well--and as Jimbo has made it clear, Wikipedia is not bound by rules. The thing with literary periodicals is they don't really get written about much outside their coteries and dialogue partners. (So that is "conflicts of interest?"--absurd. Then we'd have to discount anything Eliot or Woolf or Pound etc. said about their respective presses, magazines, and groups because they all published each other. In reality they made each other notable largely by talking about each other and writing significant things. That is one thing being ignored here, that TNP published significant and notable stuff by notable people. Like any other little magazine, you don't expect people to write *about* them at any length until they are dead and someone comes along, maybe long after, and writes a dissertation about them...which TNP has enjoyed. An editor at American Conservative is the author of one of the various elegies at TNP's passing. There are others, seemingly by notable writers, clergy members, etc. Their identities are verifiable and their blogs are reliable sources. Keep in mind Moby Dick was trivial and non-notable until it was discovered in the mid 20thC. Literary mags get mentions, and their critics or contributors get kudos or barbs from others in other venues, but they don't really talk about each other as publications. They talk *with* each other as an active discourse while living--they are the ones who do the talking about other things and become notable by trying to confer notability...or infamy on books and authors, public figures, etc. The criteria of their reliability and notability is that they are read and responded to, or published in, far more than they are written about. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is ignoring the unpublished thesis. I quoted from it above ("page 7 that the blog 'was just a blip on the cultural radar' and on page ten that '... TNP was not well known and has not been the subject of scholarly research...'"). Keep in mind, nobody who has !voted to delete is saying anything negative about the blog. It might have been the most wonderful blog ever. WP:WEB and WP:N are not quality tests. It isn't personal. And if you disagree with the various notability standards, the place to argue for relaxing or changing them is on those policy's or guidelines' talk pages. Here, (you, me, and the other editors participating in an AfD) are to apply those policies to the articles we are discussing. Novaseminary (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I have had a look and some sources I found seem to refer to something else. No signifant sources in the artciel. If sources can be found (that establish notability not exsistance) I would change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No one here believes that the content of tNP is being criticized. Advocates for rescue are claiming notability. Let us then establish notability: in addition to a thesis devoted to tNP, tNP has been referenced by:

The Oxford Handbook of British Politics: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZmWTRt5DY54C&pg=PA420&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=gc9_TOScE8H98Aal3vT1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false. That's Oxford University Press. Whether or not the individual contributor to this volume was also a contributor to tNP is irrelevant -- the editors at OUP considered reference to it worthy of inclusion.

Chuck Colson, once intimately involved with the Watergate scandal and then a leading religious and political writer: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2006/03/07/a_peculiar_people

The Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC21Ad02.html

Jeff Sharlett's edited anthology, Believer, Beware: First Person Dispatches from the Margins of Faith: http://books.google.com/books?id=k2xpyi53q7gC&pg=PR13&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=ssd_TO7mFIWenQfDrJW1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false

Rod Dreher's book, Crunchy Cons: http://books.google.com/books?id=9yBzfOSpww4C&pg=PT211&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=ssd_TO7mFIWenQfDrJW1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false

In addition to its own section in the Traditionalist Conservatism entry on Wikipedia, which seems to have been created by someone unaffiliated by tNP.

I'm not sure that I see the problem, and I'm unsure whether many other uncontested articles would have nearly this much support. The only issue I see is more thoroughly referencing these sources within the text of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment These are merely citations (the Oxford Handbook cite is literal just a citation in references section) or very trivial mentions of the blog in discussions about something else (about, e.g., Stegall, and were written by cotnributors to the blog). The coverage needs to be significant. Trivial coverage, even in significant sources, is not enough. Novaseminary (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How many "blogs" get these kinds of citations? That in itself is highly notable and significant. TNP obviously attracted the attention and contributions of notable writers and academic "experts" or "authorities" on various subjects pertaining to religion and politics. Many of these people were editors with TNP. It was published at a very interesting and significant time in US history for both religion and politics. Other experts obviously accepted the reliability and value of TNP as a source--or else they were fooled into thinking a trivial and insignificant website was much more than that--also a notable and unusual event. The academic world is quite critical of source reliability since it is ultimately a measure and commodity of personal reliability and value for individual scholars. In the early days of the interweb, the university world with its fetishization of print has been extra-critical of online-only publication, often treating it with less regard than vanity presses/academic self-publishing. Let's be clear--TNP was a reviewed journal, kind of a literary journalistic enterprise by academics, not a blog, but it was also open to non-academics. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Comment You don't "verify" notability. You set standards for notability and judge entries against these standards.  No one is claiming that tNP was the best blog ever written.  We are only claiming notability, and providing a number of significant mentions to support this claim.  However, I would like to verify one fact about a comment above:

Verifiable falsehood no. 1: "These are merely citations (the Oxford Handbook cite is literal just a citation in references section)" The author of this comment clearly does not understand the nature of citations in academic works. tNP was cited in the Oxford Handbook because of an approximately 60 word quotation on p. 406 in this handbook from a tNP essay. This is a substantial quotation for a work in a reference book; seriously, this quotation alone should justify keeping a tNP Wiki entry, as people reading this reference work might search Wikipedia for more information about tNP. While I appreciate the fact that the author of this comment did take the time to click the link, s/he clearly did not take the time to search the book before commenting. And this still fails to address that -Chuck Colson-, who is literally a key figure in 20thC American history, made reference to Mr. Stegall's work at tNP, nor does it address the extensive references in published books by Rod Dreher, Jeff Sharlett, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment You are missing the point. Even if I believed that TNP had been the most significant, notable, wonderful, and insightful series of writings ever produced by humankind, and even if somehow I could objectively prove this to be true, without the requisite coverage (not citations), the article would fail the various incarnations of WP:N. It is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Neither me nor any of the other editors have claimed anything more than this: the article fails under WP policies and guidelines. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. These sorts of mentions and citations in a works cited don't cut it. Novaseminary (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Need more diverse admin discussion* Since the unidentifiable proponents of deletion have stated from the start that the entry *will* be deleted or merged, they have indicated they are fundamentally biased and closed to the proper process of consensus-building discussion. Additionally, verifiable falsehoods and unreasonable assumptions about the number of people involved in producing a quarterly journal have been asserted by these individuals whose continued reference to TNP as a single-author "blog" are hostile and false on their face. The attacks on the reliability and significance of sources has been pushed unreasonably to the letter of Wikipedia *guidelines* and beyond. References in reliable sources have been attacked as trivial, and the reliability or significance of the sources has been questioned so that renowned scholars' resumes, the New York Times, and Oxford University Press are all described as, if not trivial sources, having trivial references to TNP. Is a small reference in the NY Times worth more or less than a brief reference on a random blog? Is a large accumulation of small references in reliable and indeed significant sources for an unfunded, non-commercial webzine that had a very brief lifespan truly "trivial?" (Of course many of the references to TNP in external sources are non-trivial as well.) Let's also look to the whole purpose of Wikipedia--accessible, good information about any subject. Suppose someone is inquiring into the history of politics in the US during the time of TNP's existence, and they find references to it in the resumes, journals, newspapers, books, etc. The curious will invariably look for more information about TNP and the web of notable people who helped constitute it as writers and/or editors. It is a consensus view that TNP was entirely marginal in the sense of speaking significantly from the margins--even it's page design suggested this. But marginality is not triviality. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a read through our policies on assuming good faith and consensus, please. Several editors have expressed an opinion as to why this subject does not meet our notability standards, and you obviously disagree.  disagreement is fine, but when it veers into attacks and disparaging comments (e.g. "fundamentally biased", "verifiable falsehoods") then that is, well, not so fine. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Identifying "verifiable falsehoods" is not a matter of "good faith" -- if a falsehood is verified, it is a matter of fact, and should be contested with facts. I provided documentation for at least one verifiable falsehood above.  I can seek more if you like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only your opinion that they are ""verifiable falsehoods", though. Disruptive editors can be removed from the playing field if need be. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I see a bare mention in the NYT, but nothing that can WP:verify notability of this short-lived web publication. The NYT article is about a much bigger phenomenon. Unfortunately this article needs third-party sources to meet policies and guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They exist. How much time did you spend looking? 67.22.193.136 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: First thing to note about the notability guidelines is that notability for TNP is established by the notability of the *content* not necessarily of the publication itself. That is a big difference from what has been argued here by deletionists, and they have not acknowledged it, even though the point has been made.

Secondly, clearly the deletionists are using the term "trivial" in an overly broad sense. Look at the definition of "trivial" in the wikipedia guidleines:


 * "web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

Third, TNP did win at least one award as one of its articles and authors was recognized in the anthologized book "Best Christian Writing" of 2006 edited by John Wilson, the longtime editor in chief of Books & Culture. The article is the one by Gideon Strauss--verify via the wayback machine. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787974757,descCd-tableOfContents.html

There you have it. And all of the academic citations to the *content* published in TNP are non-trivial third-party published works. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So are you acknowledging that the publication itself is not notable for WP purposes? That is the only question posed by this AfD. The question is not whether the content of any posting is notable, or worthy, or even a reliable source, or whether a writer for a particular publication is notable. Those things can inform the question or debate about the notability of the publication, but not supplant it. And I think you are misconstruing what other editors mean by "trivial." You might want to look at footnote 1 in WP:N. Trivial is not a judgment about the source in which the mention appears, nor is it a comment on the accuracy or even importance of the mention in some contexts. It is a corollary to WP:V. You can't write a sourced encyclopedia article with a combination of "trivial" (in this sense) sources and sources affiliated with the subject. That is why, as affirming and important to academics as citations are, a citation to a particular book, article or other writing -- or a one-sentence mention in a NY Times article-- is a "trivial" mention for notability purposes. That is not a criticism or dig, just a characterization of the mention as not presenting the sort of "biographical" information one needs to write an article. Trivial mentions can be fine to use as citations in an article that meets notability through non-trivial sources or some other way (subject to WP:UNDUE concerns), they generally just can't be the basis for the conclusion a particular person or thing is notable. Novaseminary (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply It is notable according to WP:WEB, but you are misconstruing those guidelines so that notable/non-trivial coverage means the newspaper article would have to be about the magazine itself. That is by no means what WP:WEB says. Speaking of just the NY Times article, TNP and Stegall are treated and described there as non-trivial and representative of a new/unknown/non-mainstream current in conservatism. This is non-trivial. To quibble over the intention or meaning of "non-trivial" in WP-WEB so as to achieve a very narrow definition is unreasonable and violates the spirit of WP. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reliable sources don't give the site significant coverage, and the sources that do fail WP:RS by some margin. It needs much more good quality coverage if it's ever going to pass WP:WEB. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need "much more." There is no criterion for quantity of coverage. It is simply an issue of non-trivial coverage. Being described as part of a movement found notable by a political columnist in the NY Times and published on the front page (A1) for a Saturday is notable coverage. See below under "save." 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Save. Who are the "editors" who support deletion? The people who originally started this are not editors. The only relevant issue is that the deletionists do not understand WP:WEB and appear to be willfully misreading it, while styling any criticism of them as an "attack." This is all that matters, in WP:WEB:

The Wikipedia definition of trivial:


 * "(1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The New Pantagruel has been described in newspapers in the context of a movement or line of political of which it was deemed to be representative.

The Wikipedia definition of web content:


 * "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."

Thus, a website itself is made notable via its content. How else could it be otherwise? This is made abundantly clear by the specific definitions of notability already cited. Content in TNP was published in books, magazines, other sites, won an award, etc. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "A new approach that may be more productive." Would everyone agree that the fundamental disagreement here hinges on a lack of consensus on the minimum standard of non-trivial mention in a newspaper--or really any "reliable source," correct? Isn't the main sticking point specifically the meaning of the phrase "a brief summary of the nature of the content [of a web publication]" in the nontriviality guidelines in WP:WEB? It may be better to try to clear this up, ideally by reference to specific cases in Wikipedia where online publications similar to TNP were AND were not allowed to have their own entries for reasons based on the non-triviality guideline. Can anyone provide such examples?

For example, I see that The Revealer, which has been mentioned here and on the TNP pages, is possibly even more ripe for deletionistic deleting from WP based on the views of those supporting deletion here for TNP. It merely refers to uncited citations of it in the New York Times. That said, I am positive The Revealer belongs in WP too. It is supported by a major academic institution and has been a longer running blogzine that appeared about the same time as TNP. As mentioned here, The Revealer's primary author/editor Jeff Sharlett used to be in dialogue with TNP, discusses it in some of his published writing, and he gave TNP a long mention as a significant publication on his site. (This can be fact-checked by looking at the web archive for TNP and The Revealer.) Now if The Revealer belongs in WP and gave significant mention to TNP, then that too would satisfy the non-triviality requirement.

Basically I think the main criterion in contention here needs to be clarified to a consensus meaning as a standard in WP based on past practice in WP, and then it can be used as a test against all the various cases for TNP's non-triviality--mention in a non-trivial and reliable source whether it's a book, newspaper, magazine, web publication, etc. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Most wp articles would not survive a a confluence of taking of all of the wp:n and wp:ver standards categorically and literally at the granular level. Doing so would make survival of 1/2 of wp articles simply a random matter of which articles do and don't have a savvy person attacking them. Fortunately in reality it isn't done like that, instead it is consensus based, including applying those standards in a general sense.  That's what really makes the standards work despite their flaws, and that's what really happens in Wikipedia (most of the time).  Y'all should do that here.   North8000 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not know of this publication until it was put up for deletion. There are reasons why I feel that it should be retained. My argument stems, not from Wikipolicy, but from an argument made in a thesis, from which I would like to quote part of the the abstract : In this thesis, .... the use of the carnivalesque tradition in a small web-journal called The New Pantagruel (TNP), which published between 2004-2006. The TNP editors and contributors deployed the carnivalesque tradition to criticize excessive individualism in American culture in general and, with particular fervor, several generations of American evangelicals...... the carnivalesque tradition grounded the cultural criticism in TNP in artistic and compelling ways, despite the seemingly strange combination of the nature of their critique, their deployment of the carnivalesque tradition, and the digital environment in which they published......... this strange combination of features reveals TNP to be a culturally significant artifact that both confirms and complicates traditions in American cultural criticism, especially as these traditions develop in a digital environment. These are not my words but a literal transcription from the thesis . UMI has it's own entry in Wikipedia. No copyright infraction was intended but a link to this thesis was in my opinion not enough. Please contact me if you should feel this section should be edited or removed. For the stated conclusion I would feel that the article should be kept. -- JHvW  (talk)   23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Because I have voted for keeping of the article, I have studied the article. If it is decided that the article should be kept, I also believe that the article needs rewriting, there are reasons for this: 1. The article is not well structured. 2. Most non-Americans (like myself) will want to know why this publication was important, a clear history and purpose should be given. 3. Some of the finer points are not mentioned (a jape is joke, japery is a verb meaning to jest or to mock). 4. The links are often dead or incorrect. 5. There are articles on similar publications in Wikipedia (in the article The Wittenburg Door, Ship of Fools, and The Onion are mentioned). It should not be too difficult to rewrite the article to WP standards. Keep. My conclusion, again, is that I agree with Matthew Stewart that TNP is a culturally significant artifact and deserves a place in Wikipedia. -- JHvW  (talk)   09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment But "culturally significant artifact" is not part of any WP guideline. As JHvW noted, JHvW's argument is not based in WP policy (or guidelines, I would add). In an AfD, what matters is whether a particular article meets WP guidelines and policy. Per WP:AFD, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". JHvW, how does what you wrote support the argument that this article meets WP:N? Novaseminary (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer What constitutes notability as meant in WP:N is rather subjective. The fact that a thesis was written about this journal is in itself notability enough (in my opinion). If the consensus is that TNP does not deserve it's own article, it could be argued that it should be merged with the article on Caleb Stegall. This would however mean that the publication is linked to a person and I do not believe that that was the purpose of TNP. American cultural criticism is something I am not familiar with because I have only lived in the United States for a short while (less than a year). But an encyclopedia should contain information on all important cultural developments, even after they have disappeared and regardless of where they took place. I do not agree with many of the viewpoints expressed in TNP, but they were done with an intelligent sense of humor. I certainly do not consider myself someone from the Christian conservative tradition, but I do feel that freedom of speech was an important part of the culture in which this journal was made available, especially as it was one of the first to use the emerging Internet. It may have been an artifact but it deserves a place in Wikipedia. And if the article does not meet policy or guidelines, is it not the task of contributors and editors to make sure it complies to these standards rather than just deleting it and losing something that was once a part of everyday society in the United States? Is this an answer to the question? -- JHvW  (talk)   18:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really. We both agree that the current article is terrible. The question here is only whether the blog meets WP:N or one of its related guidelines. If not, it should go. If so, it should stay (regardless of the current state of the article, though a better-done article would help make clear whether notability is met). As for the argument regarding the thesis, I cannot imagine that any subject ever covered in any MA thesis from any school automatically meets WP:N, especially--as I noted in several quotes above)-- when the thesis itself discusses the blog as "a blip" and "not well known", etc. Novaseminary (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer Maybe it is because I am a scientist, I take the contents of a thesis serious. It is unfortunate that this thesis is only "a blip" to you. Obviously notability is measured by how many hits a subject gets when looking for it with a search engine. The fact that somebody from an academic background has studied TNP carefully and even wrote a thesis on the subject, in my book accounts for something. The fact that the thesis was presented on the MAASA-PPSA (Middle Atlantic American Studies Association-Pennsylvania Political Science Association) 2009 Conference, means that there is some academic interest. In the past many important facts were mentioned in such publications and, quite often, where initially overlooked. Then there is of course the Wikipedia proces itself which will not improve readability. Finally there are some other facts that I would like to bring forward (being a bit of an outsider). This journal was published quarterly. There can not have been that many editions. So it would be logical that it is considered "not well known". The impact however seems to have been great, I have been informed that around 0,2% of the total population actually read it. But if you realise that at that point in time Broadband Internet was in its infancy, the actual percentage may be much higher. Caleb Stegall, I believe is republishing the journal on his website. If the article is deleted, somebody will probably start it all over again and the whole process will be repeated. If you look at the history of the article in Wikipedia, it seems like few people have worked on it. It may be a vanity article. But unfortunately TNP is mentioned everywhere. A small well written article would be justified in my opinion. The numbers are not impressive but publications like Punch had a smaller readership (but a longer history) and still have their own article. If it is the feeling of the community that it should go, it should go. But I will be sad to see it go as I truely believe it is a part of American culture that needs preserving in Wikipedia. -- JHvW  (talk)   20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say the thesis was a blip. The thesis said the blog was a blip. Novaseminary (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (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.