Talk:Dunes Review

Deletion discussion

Independent sources

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)

Notability

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)

(Edit conflict)* I have removed all tags per WP:Notability as states, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate," and " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I have added one reference and cited to the article,per WP:reliable sources.I have also added BLP sources tag. I will try to find more. Thanks and Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have restore the "notability" tag, as notability has not been shown conclusively. David, "notability" on WP is taken as "has been noted", which is not the same as the Webster/Oxford definitions, because "worthy" does not enter into it. Anything that has been noted can be included in WP. However, there needs to be conclusive evidence of the fact that something has been noted and the way to show that is by citing sources. Some sources are trivial: WorldCat just includes everything that has an ISSN or ISBN, has no editorial oversight in the usual sense, and is often not even reliable regarding place of publication or year of publication. Being listed in WorldCat just shows that something exists, it does not add to notability. Coverage also needs to be more than an in-passing mention. The reference to Interlochen therefore does not establish notability either: it's about the poets and their poems and mentions Dunes Review only in-passing. The coverage of the magazine in the Glen Arbor Sun is perhaps more substantial, but there are two problems with it: the Sun seems to be a very minor publication and the article is written by one of the magazine's editors, so it is not independent. Being not independent is also the problem with the references to Michigan Writers and the Glen Arbor Art Association, both organizations that sponsor the magazine. In sum: there are up till now no reliable sources independent of the subject.

Concerning the previous "PROD" tag: that tag gives editors a week time to improve an article and find sources. We generally assume that if sources cannot be found in a week, then probably they don't exist. If a tag is removed, the next step is a deletion discussion (generally referred to as AFD or AfD). That, too, is not an immediate process but leaves time to find sources if they exist. I'll wait one or two more days and then I'll open such a discussion if sources have not been found. Hope this explains things a bit better. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability is NOT temporary WP:TEMP. At the TIME of the article, the Sun editor was independent from this subject. The news article is directly about this subject and in good depth (NOT in passing). Regardless, of where this editor works in the future does not and CAN NOT change a subject's notability. The size of the publication is subjective and irrelevant. It's distribution is at least the entire state of Michigan, verified by the copies placed in multiple libraries throughout the state. But, again, this is subjective--otherwise, every small publication in smaller communities who do not measure up to big city publications is at risk of not being included in Wikipedia. --David Holmer (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, for the benefit of editors who may not know, Michigan, as well as other places, place all their newspapers, small and large publications, including the Sun, in what is commonly called our genealogy rooms within our libraries. This inclusion is inherited and should not automatically be assumed that these newspapers have notability. However, it does mean that every newspaper has the same distribution coverage within the state. --David Holmer (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The tag is removed because notability has been established, if someone is still unsatisfied, please discuss on this talk page before restoring the tag.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Justice007, while I appreciate all the work that David Holmer has done, I am curiousn as to which of the references that has been added you think shows notability. As far as I can see, all of them are just in-passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I figure out and my concept

• There are some more reliable sources,cited to the content of the article, but I give you few examples for that to understand easily. For just a pleasure, They married", is it necessary to state or write,what they will do next in the night??. Similarly, take a look at this passage,

"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)

• If the subject fails to establish the notability in the existing of cited sources,then I will realy get advantage to raise my concerns about that kind of subjects like Algemeen Dagblad which are hundreds. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:04, 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)

Using WP:Nmedia

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)

• The production of newspapers and magazines is the actual writing of the articles that are published. These award-winning publications are, therefore, based on the actual writing of the articles but NOT given to the article themselves--instead it is awarded to the publisher. On the other hand, the production of literary journals is the inclusion of already written pieces that are published. The award goes to the piece of work or poet instead of the publisher. I would have to argue that in these cases, for literary journals, award-winning content gives the journals notability: thus, this article has established notability. --David Holmer (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid things are a bit complicated here. WP has guidelines that are accepted by the community (such as Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, of course, Wikipedia:Notability) and proposed guidelines that did not get accepted by the community, but which are kept for reference and marked as being an "essay" (such as Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)). WP:NMEDIA is one of the latter. Some of these "essays", although not an "official" guideline, have reasonably broad community acceptance and are regularly used in discussions about notability (Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), for example). WP:NMEDIA (which I agree with you is particularly difficult to interpret and rather subjective) is not one of those. I have seen it cited during deletion discussions only rarely and it never was accorded much weight. In the absence of a community-approved guideline, we have to use Wikipedia:Notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume, please re-edit your above comment to something productive that we can use to improve this article, and not a discussion on your knowledge of WP guidelines. For example, your comments ONLY refer to a single criterion that this article falls short on and debunks all other criteria brought up. If there are no other criteria of notability, then please take this to a deletion discussion. This article's improvement will come much faster without your comments' constant interuptions. Thank you. --David Holmer (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

David, although I appreciate your efforts to clean up this talk page, there is nothing wrong with discussing/explaining how certain guidelines/policies apply to an article. As your above comment pertained to WP:NMEDIA, I thought it would be helpful if I would explain what NMEDIA's status here is, so that you don't get the wrong expression. I'm sorry if you didn't find it helpful. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Using WP:Academics

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, WP:ACADEMICS applies to people, not magazines/journals. And as far as I can see, Dunes Review has not received any awards itself. That its foundation and sponsors have been elected to selective/prestigious associations may show their notability, but is immaterial here because notability is not inherited. And unless I am mistaken, I have not seen anything yet that shows that Dunes Review is used in university curriculums. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, then I suggest start reading the sources already cited. It is used in the Michigan Writing Series at both WMU and MSU. The reason I started the discussion 'Using WP:Academics' is per your comment stating that it is one of two guidelines acceptable for this subject. If this is not applicable here, then your comments above are NOT about this articles improvement and a rattling off of your WP knowledge. Please find a more suitable page for rambling, trivial comments and keep this page pertaining to this articles improvement. Thank you. --David Holmer (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There we go again... I mentioned that guideline and others as examples to try to clarify/explain. If you think that trying to be helpful equals "rattling off of [my] WP knowledge", then that is your problem, not mine. From your comments it seems that more sources are not forthcoming, so I'll proceed with the AFD, where you will be welcome to present all your arguments for keeping this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, helpful is when an editor looks for a source to satisfy notability and cites it. As I have stated the source content on this subject is overwhelming. This subject is the fanfare of the community celebrating its fifteenth year, and has numerous articles in over a dozen newspapers to which you debunk every citation based on its mentioning indirectly because all articles concentrate on all the notable poets coming to THIS subject's event. Your comments of being helpful are no more than a guise. --David Holmer (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "notability is not inherited" tab here remarks that an association with something notable may not confer notability. This tab also discusses notability of parent entity toward branches—not a series of notable branches connected to a parent entity, which is the case with Dunes Review. An issue to address, then, is: If many notable people--notable even to the lone non-consensus person’s opinion--are associated with an entity, does that make the entity notable? Yes, of course. And this is especially true as these "notable" people refer to Dunes Review in their bio statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.177.198 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concept that just because a notable author writes many books, those books are not inheritedly notable. From your comment, am I to understand that one notable book makes the author notable? In such a case, this subject is notable because of its notable contributor content, yet not all of its contributors/content are notable. This makes absolute sense since the national prizes cited are awarded to the actual piece in the journal and not the journal itself. However, my problem is this: where is this concept stated in WP:Notability? --David Holmer (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the book is subordinate to its author; the contributors' relationship with their publication seems to be the other way around (hence the term submission), from down (author) to up (magazine). The "inheritance" tab refers to a tree concept from up (trunk/magazine) to down (branches/contributors) and says nothing of the inverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.177.198 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up talk page

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)

The deletion of my comments[[1]] on the article was vandalism by Guillaume2303. I removed his/her personal attack on me from the above passage.

The IP editor's comment was more of a rant and not really constructive to the article. Just a passing mention of the Dunes Review at the beginning and then launched into a tirade. Perfectly appropriate to be deleted since we already have a discussion going on concerning notability which the editor could post there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

David, thanks for your edits of the IP comments. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving page to Userspace

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)

• It is not needed, I just come to login my account, I am going to reply to Guillaume2303's concerns about notability,first I have to enjoy with my cup of tea.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

David, I would just suggest patience. These things take time and it has only been up a few days now. If a user thinks that it should be PRODed or AFDed then just let it go through the process. If it is determined that it should be deleted, then you can have it moved to a sandbox/userspace. Pre-emptively doing so is unnecessary. I would just wait a little to see if it really, truly is going to be deleted. As of right now, there is not a delete tag on there, so just relax and then keep hunting for additional reliable sources. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Joanna, I was unaware that I had that option. WP pages made it seem inevitable without any recovery of the work. --David Holmer (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Using Dunes Review as a source

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)

Yes of course you're right sir: The argument about "wiki" notablity of contributors makes no sense, like many of the other arguments here...196.219.219.130 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DR and its sponsors are also used for historical purposes of this journals inner workings, ie. major management changes, which as a WP reader/user, I think is very interesting and would like to continue to see here. It is valuable, sourced content. --David Holmer (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Some WP:good faith

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)

• Hi, David, well-come back to contribute the articles. Don't be dishearted, be bold to edit here, the editor was not wrong to remove image. For image you have to get the permission from the author/writer or creator. According to WP:copyright, we can not add images that are not free of-. You should ask the editor of the magazine to mail you a permission letter, then will be everything OK. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor of the magazine did mail me a permission letter. And, I had already forwarded it to permissions and got a ticket# BEFORE even uploading the image. So, who IS right? He NEVER communicates, NEVER contributes, ONLY deletes - yet, he is NOT wrong??? Anyway, I already complained to permissions and am emailing directly with them and the magazine itself until everything is finalized. But, it will be at least another month, if ever, before I contribute again to this article. And, you can send your thanks to him. --David Holmer (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201173455/http://ipr.interlochen.org/ipr-soundscapes/episode/7193 to http://ipr.interlochen.org/ipr-soundscapes/episode/7193
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618013851/http://www.michwriters.org/mwpublications.html to http://www.michwriters.org/mwpublications.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110908030642/http://www.glenarborart.org/dunes-review.asp to http://www.glenarborart.org/dunes-review.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)