Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeugma (literary journal)

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 no consensus. – Will (message me!) 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeugma (literary journal)

It is with sadness (Canadian content and all), I nominate this as a non-notable publication. A limited edition, with only 2 issues completed. It may fall within WP:ADS. Gay Cdn 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I tend to like literary journals, so I kinda wish this wasn't the case, but their first issue had a photocopied and hand-sewn print run of 200 issues? I realize that this kind of a small-scale, low-tech and personalized approach is intentional, but it doesn't really do wonders for their circulation -- or notability... (Also, the article's tone is decidedly unencyclopedic.) I wish this guys the best of luck in what seems like a very cool venture, but Wikipedia material this ain't. -- Captain Disdain 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with regret Dlyons493 Talk 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Literary journals typically have much smaller circulations than mass-market magazines, and Zeugma did get a grant from the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, which adds to its credibility. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Gay Cdn and Captain Disdain. -- Kjkolb 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but, to be clear, I was the one who started the article, so you might want to discount my vote. On the other hand, I am not directly connected with Zeugma (other than social acquaintance with authors - impossible to avoid in a city like St. John's) Here's why I felt that it had merit, and created it:
  • The journal exists within an arts community (Newfoundland's, that is) that is generally strong, but it is the only literary journal currently active. As such, it bears a importance that goes beyond simple circulation numbers.
  • Zeugma has successfully reached it's second edition, and received more funding (such as the N&L Arts Council grant mentioned above) and greater circulation. I would not have supported the presence of this article after only one printing.
  • Zeugma is functioning as a professional publication in ways that are not maintained by many "non-notable" publications. The founders (and primary driving forces behind the publication), mentioned in the article, are not publishing their own work, for example, meaning this is not simple self-promotion.
  • Zeugma's has been covered in local media (none of which maintain online archives I can point you to - sorry!) by programs and publications that have no connections to the publishers.
  • Basically, Zeugma probably is non-notable outside Newfoundland (at least, so far), but maintains more than enough regional significance to justify it's existence. I'm sure the next poster is going to say "I'm from Newfoundland, and I've never heard of it!", but I'm not trying to say that *everyone* here is touched by Zeugma, only that it is relevant enough within the arts community here to justify inclusion.
  • Finally, as a response to the hand-sewn comment, that was clearly intentional - This wasn't a "run it through mom's sewing machine" type job. I know you have allowed for that, but you make parallel claims that the type of binding can hurt circulation (true - it's time-consuming, I assume) and notability. I disagree with the second - as long as a type of binding looks professional, or at least intentional (both of which this one did, at least to the uneducated eye such as mine), I would suggest it has no effect on notability. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just realized that the article has been edited a couple of times to make it more "addy", and I'm going to go back and filter a bit, hopefully creating an article that will pass POV tests. However, within an encyclopedia/community which is willing to maintain an entire category for "encyclopedic" |lists of porn stars, I hope that an article on a small but growing literary journal can be maintained. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 2006 (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.