Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vestal 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Vestal Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A low circulation literary magazine. There are only two sources cited, both to books of short stories that reprinted one of the stories that was published in the magazine. One of those books was written by the editor of the magazine. The article has been tagged as needing more citations since 2008, but none have been presented. I've looked and I haven't found any independent sources about the magazine either, so I believe this topic fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've kind of looked for sources for this on the side, as someone tried adding a hotlink to this to the article for flash fiction itself. What I've seen so far is that the magazine has had notable people write for it and re-published some of the stories, but not really anything about the actual magazine that's in-depth. I'll try to scratch a little deeper, but so far I'm mostly finding incidental/trivial mentions as far as news and book sources go. There's so far not much to show notability or back up any of the claims, at least not really anything that would be seen as a RS that'd show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search and here's what I've found: there's nothing to show that this site has notability. There's incidental and trivial mentions of this site in relation to other people, some of whom are notable. Trivial mentions don't add up to notability, no matter how many there are. There's brief mentions of this book in various writing books that tend to list multiple such sites directory-style, which also doesn't really count towards notability since it's all pretty much trivial at best. As far as awards go, the site hasn't won anything that would be seen as being notable enough to warrant keeping. It isn't highly circulated either and as far as longevity goes, that actually doesn't mean that the site is notable. Considering that pretty much the only place I'm seeing this claim is on the site itself and non-usable sources, the validity of this claim can and probably should be questioned because ff is such a minor niche it's entirely possible that there's an even older magazine that never got mentioned somewhere. In any case, this is pretty much a delete. There's no notability here. Admins, you might want to look into the original editor, as there's some serious potential COI going on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is permissible for people with a connection to a subject to write on Wikipedia. So long as they do so in an appropriate manner. It is not permissible to use COI against someone as part of a content dispute. Rather, open a case at the COI Noticeboard if there is reason to believe inappropriate editing, it's a separate issue from AfD. Our question is if there is room for an article on this topic on Wikipedia, regardless of who wrote it, per the WP:GNG guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - self-advertisement for non-notable "publication" of limited circulation. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way,


 * -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. They have published a few notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (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.