Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordwrights (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, because there is a footpath between notable publishing and quiet local support for writers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wordwrights (magazine)

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

This was a non-notable micro-magazine that became defunct without making any significant mark on the literary landscape. Its greatest claim to fame was that a story it published once won a Special Mention in the Pushcart anthology--not publication in the anthology, just a Special Mention. And while it is true that Nani Power is a published novelist, her books have never been particularly culturally notable or controversial in any way, and in any case notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED), so the tangential relationship between the defunct magazine and Nani Power isn't really relevant. Literary magazines like the Southern Review or Black Warrior Review are notable, because they consistently publish leading and notable authors. But Wordwrights was never in their league. Qworty (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. Relies upon an unreliable blog citation and another to Amazon.com that is completely unrelated to the article. The Angelfire ref further illustrates the non-notability of the magazine. --Eustress (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per Special Mention in the Pushcart Prize anthology, as well as being the origional publisher of "Blues for Beginners" by Podell. AfD hero (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, and the references aren't good enough to be used properly. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (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.