Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Organ Review of Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Weak consensus but discussion indicates a significant effort was made to bolster the article sources with minimal results. Pigman☿ 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Organ Review of Arts

The Organ Review of Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This publication was (according to the stub) pretty short-lived. Notability was never established, no citations were ever provided. I don't exactly doubt that it existed, but I also don't know that it did. I PRODded it, and an editor "saved" it, but only gave the explanation that it appeared that famous people had contributed. I think we can safely get rid of this stub; if it is in fact notable, it won't be hard for someone to recreate. Pete (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep short lived obviously has nothing to do about it; for a small experimental literary magazine, the large number of famous contributors is very much relevant for notability. But I must admit I have been unable to find any references myself. DGG (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Triumph. There is at least one reference, and I added it. Best results are found by Googling for "organ review of arts" (220 hits altogether) or "camela raymond" with double quotes. Since the paper was offered as a free quarterly consisting (originally) of four pages 12" x 24", and since Google finds little trace of any continuing influence or even any publication later than 2004, I think this doesn't make the grade on notability. No Worldcat libraries carry it. Though we have articles on some of the contributors to the Organ, I doubt that their WP articles make any mention of this paper. In fact, we have no sources for the set of named contributors currently in the article, and under BLP, maybe we shouldn't list them without a source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good find, Ed. I had tried Googling myself, now I wonder if I made a typo? Because I didn't find anything. But I agree, the source you turned up establishes that it existed, sold some ads...but not a whole lot more. (As a side note, founder Raymond wrote an excellent piece on Maya Lin's Confluence Project last fall in a different pub.) -Pete (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of references and I don't believe it's notable on its own merits. Enigma msg Review 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Note to Pete: I don't know if you noticed I moved the article or saw the talk page (where I posted my efforts at Googling), but it was at the wrong title before. I didn't get any hits either until I searched the right title. General comment: Is it possible that Camela Raymond is notable and that we could create an article on her redirect this article there? Katr67 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well...some quick googling does little to persuade me that she's sufficiently notable, but Google is not the be-all-end-all. Looks like she's written a lot, and I certainly like what I've read. But I don't see much of anything written about her. If you or anyone wants to prove me wrong, go to it -- I certainly don't oppose such an article on principle, and don't consider myself any kind of expert on the arts scene, local or otherwise. -Pete (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No opinion I did find this though. It's not a hoax is about all I can say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 7 April 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.