Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oakland 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 redirect to Carnegie Mellon University.  Sandstein  17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Oakland Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod removed by article creator. However, no independent sources showing notability. Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable as multiple professors have been involved with the publication (e.g. Jim Daniels and Terrance Hayes), and many noteworthy contributors (e.g. Jewell Parker Rhodes, David Yezzi, Gerald Costanzo). Edit: I was not aware of Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. 84percent (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability for magazine or journal media mentions award-winning work and frequent citations as possible standards for notability. I'm not sure if the AWP's undergraduate journal award finalist position would count as "award-winning" but the journal is also cited in various poet-bios on the internet. Doing a quick search showed that poems in its issue had won the 2018 Academy of American Poets Prize ("Coumbite" according to the award page and "Carol" according to the list of poems on the journal article's website). I would say merge, but I don't know how to put all of this into the Carnegie Mellon Wikipedia article. Userqio (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks coverage in RS. Or, merge to Carnegie Mellon. Citrivescence (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carnegie Mellon per WP:FAILN. The lack of independent coverage to establish notability means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, but it'd be a useful search term to keep, and there is WP:ABOUTSELF content that can be used at the Carnegie Mellon article. Leviv&thinsp;ich 00:41, 13 April 2019 (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.