Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Your Darlings (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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Your Darlings (magazine)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PERIODICAL Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Originally nominated for CSD A7 but withdrew due to contested deletion on talk page, speedy delete seemed a bit hasty at the time. Still, does not seem very notable. — kikichugirl ^inquire 06:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two references that provide a bit of notability for this magazine. First, it was highlighted in the Emerging Writers Festival this May at Victoria University. Second, it was described in the "Books + Publishing" website. I found the magazine mentioned no other times. However, there are many entries under the title "Kill Your Darlings" for several unrelated books and a DVD. I'm not certain what I found provides enough notability to warrant a 'keep' decision. If someone finds more supporting items for a 'keep' vote, I would vote such. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating articles for deletion because they don't meet the criteria set out in an essay is generally not a good idea, especially when you don't set out how the article fails to meet the criteria. The most relevant widely-accepted notability criteria is probably WP:BK, which states that books are notable if they've been the subject of multiple and non-trivial articles, including reviews. Issues of this magazine has been reviewed at least twice in significant journals: [1], [2], as well as in newspapers [3]. In fact, if you go through the list of issues of this magazine at the Austlit database here many of them have received serious critical reviews (Issue 1 received four reviews). I think that this level of coverage is also sufficient to meet WP:GNG and notability is established. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears for most of your footnotes one would need a sign on to access the information, which means it cannot simply be pulled up and examined. However, you added one easily accessible, and good, reference with the citation from Overland. This makes at least three valid independent sources supporting this magazine. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added three references to this article that have come to light from this AfD discussion. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.