This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dunes Review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I have already found some independent sources and added them. Also, I will be making a trip to the library to go through microfiche and add much more from the area's dozen or so newspapers. No independent sources is no longer the issue. -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I struggle with this vague and poorly written concept. I understood this to have the same meaning as the Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions of "quality of being worthy of being remembered." However, I am being reminded daily that WP has its own definitions, rules and procedures to be followed. So, here is my reasoning as to why this article should be "remembered" or WP:not deleted... 1) It has sole existence: the only literary magazine in northern Michigan. (The other current literary magazines are from Kalamazoo, Lansing, or Ann Arbor--all in the southern counties of Michigan) 2) It is unique: it is the true voice of Michigan writers and published by the people (all other Michigan magazines are controlled by government subsidized universities--WMU,MSU,UofM--and contain over 80% of its content from outside the state of Michigan.) 3) It has longevity: it has published continually for the past 15 years. (despite the recession and discontinuation of other more notable magazines) For these three reasons, I feel it is worth being remembered as an important part of poetic history itself. Now, it is up to you fellow-editors to discuss this deletion... Are my three points enough to qualify as notable? -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I figure out and my concept
"Last year, her essay about the demolition necessary for the construction of Detroit’s new Tiger Stadium was published in The Dunes Review."(R.3, Michigan State University Libraries.)
In that passage, the editorial board is not degrading the poet to mention a non-notable magazine, here they mean that notable poet geting coverage of her work in the notable magazine too. That is the description what I draw from that passage. Second,
"Michigan Writers, Inc. was launched in the summer of 2001 when more than two dozen area writers pooled talents and resources to form an organization dedicated to helping writers hone their craft and publish their work. Michigan Writers holds regular events, co-publishes the Dunes Review literary journal, and launched a Cooperative Press, which publishes outstanding chapbooks. Once a month it hosts Michigan Writers On the Air (IPR News Radio 91.5 FM), which features interviews with local and visiting writers." (R.2)
That passage has been written by the editorial board of " The Academy of American Poets", in which notability is visible.
In my view the subject passes the notability, and sources establish the notability too. Justice007 ( talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course the Dunes Review is notable and worthy of a page here. Thank you David for the fine work here. I am sorry to read Guillaume2303 and could not disagree more with his/her opinions. You are in the right here and his/her comments, especially about this being a “waste of time” are out of line. As you skillfully pointed out, the remarks about “importance” being relative, especially for newspaper and radio, do not make sense either as those bodies have publication standards. I found this Dunes Review string after getting a message from a colleague to look into the material that Guillaume2303 repeatedly censored. It is interesting to see that the same person (Guillaume 2303) is involved in removing text again and again. Good work David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.144.197 ( talk) 04:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If WP:NMEDIA is used for discussing the notability of literary journals, difficulties arise in how we are to interpret produced from criteria "1. have produced award winning work" for Newspapers, magazines, and journals? Has this publication itself been award-winning -- not from the resources that I have found thus far. Has this publication's content been award-winning -- Yes, multiple times and already cited with independent, reliable and verifiable sources. How is this criterion to be interpreted? -- David Holmer ( talk) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If we use WP:Academics, substituting this subject (the literary journal/its content) for the person, 2. its content has received at least three highly prestigious academic awards at a national level; 3. its foundation and sponsors have been elected a member of two highly selective and prestigious associations; 4. its work has a significant impact in the area of higher education, with its content being used in two university curriculums. Thus, this subject is notable. And, these are the ones that I have been able to find with independent, reliable and verifiable sources thus far. There have been hundreds of poets over the past fifteen years and the source content for this subject is overwhelming. -- David Holmer ( talk) 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
David, I think you need to re-read the policies that you cited to revert my removal of this REMOVED TEXT. If you want to see where this comes from, then look at the history of the article on boundary 2. My reversion of his edits has been checked and upheld several times by multiple other editors, among them several admins, who in reaction protected the page (I did not do that - cannot even, as I am not an admin) and even, quite exceptionally, its talk page. The discussion in this section pertains to boundary 2 and has nothing to do with Dunes Review. This is not something that falls under 3O, WP:consensus, or WP:N, but something that falls under personal attacks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Joanna, I have asked Guillaume2303 for a compromise and for us to reach a consensus on moving this article back to my userspace where we can work on it until it is ready for main Wikipedia. -- David Holmer ( talk) 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment was made that the writers contributing to Dunes Review don't have wiki-articles therefore they are NOT notable. Well, the list of notable contributors were deleted early on because 1) the sources used were from the actual journals that I have on my shelf and not independent, and 2) they were listed by the year they won the DR award and not their most prestigious award. I have now re-listed some of them. Again, the source content for this subject is overwhelming, and I am sure that given enough time, I will easily be able to find independent sources for these contributors. -- David Holmer ( talk) 05:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, bear with me. As I am still new, it is hard to understand all the processes here at Wikipedia. And, I am learning a new one: uploading an image. Before AFD, I had obtained the permission to use the image of the cover of the 2012 Summer issue for the article. Upset with the treatment from other editors, I stopped contributing to this article for quite some time. I have finally decided to start adding content again, starting with this image. IMMEDIATELY, my edits (adding this image) were deleted in between the upload of the image (in the commons) and the tag removed by OTRS (in the commons), within MINUTES! I had to go to OTRS to file a complaint. But, I don't even know the proper procedures for this. So, here is announcement for the cover image. If you notice something wrong, please discuss here before deleting the image again. If you do NOT discuss, how am I suppose to learn what I am doing wrong? Thank you. -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dunes Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dunes Review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I have already found some independent sources and added them. Also, I will be making a trip to the library to go through microfiche and add much more from the area's dozen or so newspapers. No independent sources is no longer the issue. -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I struggle with this vague and poorly written concept. I understood this to have the same meaning as the Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions of "quality of being worthy of being remembered." However, I am being reminded daily that WP has its own definitions, rules and procedures to be followed. So, here is my reasoning as to why this article should be "remembered" or WP:not deleted... 1) It has sole existence: the only literary magazine in northern Michigan. (The other current literary magazines are from Kalamazoo, Lansing, or Ann Arbor--all in the southern counties of Michigan) 2) It is unique: it is the true voice of Michigan writers and published by the people (all other Michigan magazines are controlled by government subsidized universities--WMU,MSU,UofM--and contain over 80% of its content from outside the state of Michigan.) 3) It has longevity: it has published continually for the past 15 years. (despite the recession and discontinuation of other more notable magazines) For these three reasons, I feel it is worth being remembered as an important part of poetic history itself. Now, it is up to you fellow-editors to discuss this deletion... Are my three points enough to qualify as notable? -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I figure out and my concept
"Last year, her essay about the demolition necessary for the construction of Detroit’s new Tiger Stadium was published in The Dunes Review."(R.3, Michigan State University Libraries.)
In that passage, the editorial board is not degrading the poet to mention a non-notable magazine, here they mean that notable poet geting coverage of her work in the notable magazine too. That is the description what I draw from that passage. Second,
"Michigan Writers, Inc. was launched in the summer of 2001 when more than two dozen area writers pooled talents and resources to form an organization dedicated to helping writers hone their craft and publish their work. Michigan Writers holds regular events, co-publishes the Dunes Review literary journal, and launched a Cooperative Press, which publishes outstanding chapbooks. Once a month it hosts Michigan Writers On the Air (IPR News Radio 91.5 FM), which features interviews with local and visiting writers." (R.2)
That passage has been written by the editorial board of " The Academy of American Poets", in which notability is visible.
In my view the subject passes the notability, and sources establish the notability too. Justice007 ( talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course the Dunes Review is notable and worthy of a page here. Thank you David for the fine work here. I am sorry to read Guillaume2303 and could not disagree more with his/her opinions. You are in the right here and his/her comments, especially about this being a “waste of time” are out of line. As you skillfully pointed out, the remarks about “importance” being relative, especially for newspaper and radio, do not make sense either as those bodies have publication standards. I found this Dunes Review string after getting a message from a colleague to look into the material that Guillaume2303 repeatedly censored. It is interesting to see that the same person (Guillaume 2303) is involved in removing text again and again. Good work David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.144.197 ( talk) 04:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If WP:NMEDIA is used for discussing the notability of literary journals, difficulties arise in how we are to interpret produced from criteria "1. have produced award winning work" for Newspapers, magazines, and journals? Has this publication itself been award-winning -- not from the resources that I have found thus far. Has this publication's content been award-winning -- Yes, multiple times and already cited with independent, reliable and verifiable sources. How is this criterion to be interpreted? -- David Holmer ( talk) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If we use WP:Academics, substituting this subject (the literary journal/its content) for the person, 2. its content has received at least three highly prestigious academic awards at a national level; 3. its foundation and sponsors have been elected a member of two highly selective and prestigious associations; 4. its work has a significant impact in the area of higher education, with its content being used in two university curriculums. Thus, this subject is notable. And, these are the ones that I have been able to find with independent, reliable and verifiable sources thus far. There have been hundreds of poets over the past fifteen years and the source content for this subject is overwhelming. -- David Holmer ( talk) 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
David, I think you need to re-read the policies that you cited to revert my removal of this REMOVED TEXT. If you want to see where this comes from, then look at the history of the article on boundary 2. My reversion of his edits has been checked and upheld several times by multiple other editors, among them several admins, who in reaction protected the page (I did not do that - cannot even, as I am not an admin) and even, quite exceptionally, its talk page. The discussion in this section pertains to boundary 2 and has nothing to do with Dunes Review. This is not something that falls under 3O, WP:consensus, or WP:N, but something that falls under personal attacks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Joanna, I have asked Guillaume2303 for a compromise and for us to reach a consensus on moving this article back to my userspace where we can work on it until it is ready for main Wikipedia. -- David Holmer ( talk) 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment was made that the writers contributing to Dunes Review don't have wiki-articles therefore they are NOT notable. Well, the list of notable contributors were deleted early on because 1) the sources used were from the actual journals that I have on my shelf and not independent, and 2) they were listed by the year they won the DR award and not their most prestigious award. I have now re-listed some of them. Again, the source content for this subject is overwhelming, and I am sure that given enough time, I will easily be able to find independent sources for these contributors. -- David Holmer ( talk) 05:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, bear with me. As I am still new, it is hard to understand all the processes here at Wikipedia. And, I am learning a new one: uploading an image. Before AFD, I had obtained the permission to use the image of the cover of the 2012 Summer issue for the article. Upset with the treatment from other editors, I stopped contributing to this article for quite some time. I have finally decided to start adding content again, starting with this image. IMMEDIATELY, my edits (adding this image) were deleted in between the upload of the image (in the commons) and the tag removed by OTRS (in the commons), within MINUTES! I had to go to OTRS to file a complaint. But, I don't even know the proper procedures for this. So, here is announcement for the cover image. If you notice something wrong, please discuss here before deleting the image again. If you do NOT discuss, how am I suppose to learn what I am doing wrong? Thank you. -- David Holmer ( talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dunes Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)