Talk:Loggernaut

Notability

The notability of this entry has been questioned. I believe the entry is notable.

Here's the Wiki definition of notability: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

1) On 12 June 2006, the Loggernaut Reading Series was the subject of a feature article in The Oregonian, a daily newspaper with a circulation of 350,000 (see The Oregonian). The link to this article was formerly on the Loggernaut Wikipedia page; however, the article is no longer available online (here is the dead link: [1] However, anyone with access to Lexis-Nexis or to archives of major U.S. newspapers can access this article.

2) On 23 August 2006, the Loggernaut Reading Series was the subject of an editorial/interview[2] in the Willamette Week, a publication that won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 2005.

I think those two facts, alone, indicate that Loggernaut meets the requirements of notability: it is a subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Additionally--although not directly addressing the criteria of notability--Loggernaut events are routinely listed and lauded in the weekly papers in Portland. [3] [4][5] [6].

Also--and this will fall under the category of original research until I take the time to cite any number of newspaper and magazine articles in agreement--it is simply a reality of North American literary circles that a large amount of literary activity and discussion now takes place online, with some literary blogs now serving the public discourse of literature to a much greater extent than do traditional print literary journals. The appearances that the Loggernaut website makes in such well-read literary blogs as Maud Newton, Rake's Progress [7], Elegant Variation, and Beatrice is not insignificant.

But, again, I think points 1) and 2) make the case for the notability of Loggernaut as an online literary journal and a reading series. -- harlanjohnson 02:51 14 February 2007

I've tried to put some lipstick on this pig, but I have the following comments:

1. It is your responsibility as the author to find the information to fill in a {{cite news}} template for that article in The Oregonian, that is to say, things like |author= and |page= ... a comment like "anyone with access XYZ can access this article" on a Talk page (i.e., not in the Article itslef) is not a WP:RS citation for purposes of WP:Verifiability.
2. I have formatted the reference from Willamette Week into a proper citation ... please use this as an example for future reference.
3. Regardless of how popular they are, "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" because they lack WP:V ... see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) ... consequently, I have moved them from "References" to "External links".

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The pig thanks you for the lipstick. To address your comments:

The citations to articles in the Oregonian have been added to the entry and formatted correctly. See Talk page entry below.

Thanks for formatting. The rest of the citations follow this lead.

harlanjohnson 20:35, 25 May 2007

Merge

Note to admin: there has already been signifigant support for a Merge, in a recent AFD discussion and no opinions have been voiced for no merge at the time of this writing, and, on that note, I voice my Support of a merge here due to brevity. i kan reed 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability ... NOT!

First of all, as a rule of thumb, if it does not have an "author" and a "published date", then it's not a WP:RS ... an anonymous press announcement listing the speakers and the date of a reading does not qualify.

Second, the criteria to be used with this particular article is WP:Notability (web), not WP:Notability (organizations and companies).

Having said that, and having waded through the references provided, what I found was either trivial coverage (announcements), or coverage of the parent organization, i.e., the reading series with which it is affiliated, not the website itself.

What this article needs by way of Attribution is references to published articles that say, "This website is ...", and not just an interview conducted by email with one of the three authors featured at one bi-monthly reading that does not even mention the website ... the Willamette Week article may be WP:RS, but if you search it for "web", you get bupkiss, so it just does not count towards satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial" criteria of WP:WEB ... if this were instead an article about the Loggernaut Reading Series, then that would be a different story altogether (although it is still trivial coverage.)

I'm sorry (sympathizing, not apologizing), but this looks like a candidate for CSD A7 speedy deletion, i.e., "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites." —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New References Addressing Notability Concerns

I have added two more references (with page numbers) to two articles entirely about the Loggernaut Reading Series. Both are from the Oregonian, the major daily newspaper of Oregon (with a circulation of 350,000). I've also added a reference to a long feature article in the Oregonian titled "Urban Scrawl" that mentions the Loggernaut Reading Series in a discussion of the author Justin Tussing. I hesitated to include these references earlier because they are not available for reading on the web without access to (one of the many) news archive services (or without accessing the archive of the Oregonian). However, I take your point about the necessity for additional independent references, and the insufficiency of anonymous announcements. So with the articles in the Oregonian by J. David Santen (who appears to be that paper's go-to guy for literary events), and the article in the Willamette Week by Karla Starr, I think this entry meets the "multiple, non-trivial" criteria.

This is an entry about both the Loggernaut Reading Series and the Loggernaut website. Why? Because when they were separate entries a call went out to merge them. Someone merged the two entries into Loggernaut. If you think the single entry should be called Loggernaut Reading Series, because this is the specific subject that has been addressed in multiple, non-trivial published sources (c.f. referenced articles in the Oregonian and Willamette Week), that seems fine to me. harlanjohnson (talk · contribs) 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should have been merged as the series (WP:CORP) rather than as the website (WP:WEB), with mention that it is "affiliated with an online literary journal" instead of the other way around (I may try to fix that if I have the time) ... BTW, sources do not have to be available online, but there must be enough information in the citation (as you have provided) to find it in the archives or on microfiche at a library ... and the WP:N of The Oregonian has been established sufficiently by it having a Wikipedia article, so there is no need to taut its circulation in an attempt to corroborate it being a WP:RS. :-) —68.239.79.82 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've completed the rewrite and removed the tags, but I do not recommend a rename because of how many articles already reference it by the current name (see "What links here" on main page) and the subsequent need for a redirect ... I have also prominently flagged the AfD for the other name in an attempt to forestall Some Other Editor taking us down that road a second time ... my final action was to update the listing in Reading series#Oregon with a (disambiguated) wikilink to this article instead of an explicit EL to the website ... BTW, I hope that that stubby list of an article was not created (same author, same day) just to add verisimilitude to this one.

Now I think that it's time for me to MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)