Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Willows (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Willows (magazine)

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

Article topic fail to meet the standards for notability -- multiple, independent non-trivial mentions suggesting that the topic is of any importance. The NYT mention so hyped here is pretty much a textbook example of a "trivial" reference per our notability rules, in that the magazine was mentioned in an offhanded way but in no way was the subject being discussed. The source here can only confirm that the topic exists but in no way supports any of the claims in the article, so there are no reliable sources on the topic. It's been a year since I first tagged this as having notability problems and no improvement has been made due to insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I think it was also created by a user with a COI. DreamGuy (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete I desperately wanted to find a reference that might save this. Tragically, I couldn't. AngoraFish   木  11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "multiple, independent non-trivial mentions" are the criteria for WP:GNG which is usually included as criterion 1 in notability guidelines. But it's not the only one. WP:BK has several other criteria that would need to be evaluated. All they require is verification which doesn't have to be non-trivial. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only one of those other criteria at WP:BK that isn't a restating in some way of the GNG is the "major literary award" clause, which does not apply in this case. All other criteria listed there would only exist in a situation where there are multiple, independent non-trivial mentions; similarly any major literary award would almost have to be the result of, or immediate cause of, multiple, independent non-trivial mentions. The specific topic notability guidelines are intended to clarify the standard notability guidelines in a way that is easier for people to understand, not overrule them. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the mention commented upon in the article is brief and trivial, and I couldn't find anything else. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame, but I guess I'll have to say delete, with no prejudice against recreation should more sources turn up. Hiding T 15:15, 30 March 2009 (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.