Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wag's Revue


 * 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. Skomorokh 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wag's Revue
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This doesn't see notable under Notability (web) The only real third part source is a Brown U newspaper and it seems it only got that because of the fact it was made by 3 brown students. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to be a notable website. Fire 55 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two other articles at the bottom linked to show that it is a notable publication, especially Poets & Writers article, which appeared in print, and is the leading industry mag. I'd also point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_magazines to show that online magazines can be considered to be legitimate publications. Sandraeallen (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should read the link I gave. It clearly says that it NOTABLE has many THIRD party sources. and Yes they are going to be online mags on wikipedia, BUT NOT everyone single one. ONLY the ones that are popular and as a lot of third party sources. Can you find more third party sources beside the Brown U newspaper. I can't. Sorry blogs don't count. --Fire 55 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it troubling that there's not a hard-and-fast rule to determine 'notability'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeallen (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. I am only seeing one thing that could save it, which is the Poets & Writers article. I don't think that is enough to show significant coverage on its own and the other sources are not really any help. If additional coverage can be demonstrated then I will reconsider but it is a delete for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fairly new ezine, doesn't seem notable enough yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, after looking for sources, I'm also going to have to say delete. Might be notable in the future, but not yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete If it's not notable, after being featured in a write-up of Poets & Writers, which is the industry standard, you should delete all of these as well, (many are much smaller, defunct and publishing writers of much less note): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_magazines
 * But if you look at the mention of it in Poets & Writers, you'll find that it really doesn't say much about the publication. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What American Metrosexual has linked there is not the Poets and Writer's article, but the listing from their site where they endorse it as a literary magazine that writers should be aware of for submitting submissions. The ARTICLE that was done on Wag's Revue in Poets & Writers can be found here: http://www.pw.org/content/literary_magnet_40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeallen (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my error, but even your link doesn't say much about the magazine; in fact, the second paragraph sounds like it's about a different topic. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, to quote you from before: "I removed the speedy tag because after doing a Google search, I found that the magazine is notable." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wag%27s_Revue). So, according to you, before it was notable enough, but after reading further sources (when I provided them, as people demanded), it was not? I can't help but feel that you have some sort of vendetta or point you're trying to make. I could quote the first half of the Poets&Writers article in-full, if that will aid your ability to make an 'objective' judgment, but I assure you, half of that article is entirely about Wag's Revue, and says a great many things about it. Sandraeallen (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a vendetta because I changed my stance? That's not even what a vendetta is. And as far as half of the article being about your magazine, um, that was my point. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability. As a newly launched quarterly online magazine, it may become notable in the future but the current coverage doesn't support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 17 September 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.