Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Literary Rejections on Display

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, fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Rejections on Display

This blog does not seem especially notable. The only sources that I can find are other blogs. Captain panda 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search reveals several thousand hits here though most of the sources are other blogs as farbric notes. Its a borderline subject. No Opinion at present but it seems to be a genuine site. Artene50 (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Site should be retained. It clearly is a subject of interest among major literary figures who contribute to its debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.81.200 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a blog that doesn't appear to be have been covered in the mainstream media, or any other reliable source. This fails the verifiability policy. BradV 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, borderline speedy ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good covereage at wet asphalt, entertainment weekly, the phoenix, other media-related sites. If we do reject the site, of course, it will add fodder the its own rejection theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AardvarksCollective (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — AardvarksCollective (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — AardvarksCollective (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete non-notable blog. Too little coverage in 3rd party sources.Yobmod (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Maybe Merge clearly notable. Much of the coverage is under LROD. At a minimum, Somebody should probably write an article on Appel and include this as a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.109.215 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hundreds of hits, cited in numerous literary journals but not much mainstream coverage. I think the list of celebrity contributors, from Joyce Carol Oates to Ted Genoways, should weigh toward retention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenwickofulm (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn blog --T-rex 05:02, 28 June 2008 (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.