Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crypt of Cthulhu

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 keep. Tone 20:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crypt of Cthulhu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this subject. To put it bluntly, this fanzine is as notable as Yog-Sothoth.com is. Furthermore, Price's own notability is questionable at best. I doubt that his article would survive another deletion discussion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes it's a fanzine, but it's a notable one, e.g.

[1], "COC is an eclectic, nonacademic magazine dedicated to the study and analysis of the life and career of H P Lovecraft and associated writers. Most articles – often informative and never staid – are written in a lighthearted style. Of special merit are the articles by S T Joshi and Will Murray (1953-). The magazine also contains fiction; of particular interest are the issues which can be regarded as Anthologies/collections in their own right. Such issues include: #10 Ashes and Others (coll 1982 chap), presenting more recently identified revisions and ghostwriting by Lovecraft;..."
[2] "Other guests of honor included Robert M. Price, founder of the legendary zine Crypt of Cthulhu..."
[3], "Crypt of Cthulhu wasn’t some staid and turgid academic journal [...] it was a platform for serious Mythos/HPL scholarship..."
[4] "The chief Lovecraftian journals, Lovecraft Studies and Crypt of Cthulhu...", with similar praise in [5].
[6] (reprinting hard-to-find older works, critical essays, [...] and new fiction)

and is cited a rather large number of times in works concerning Lovecraft studies (e.g. [7]). CoC is also where a lot of new Lovecraftian authors first published their stories, or published some of their first stories, many of whom are now accomplished authors in their own rights, such as Ramsey Campbell.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of those sources briefly mention Crypt of Cthulhu. The The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article and the DMR Books blog post are the only substantial sources here. The encyclopedia article is mostly a listing of authors whose works were published in the fanzine. Meanwhile, the DMR Books blog post is most substantial source. Unfortunately, it was posted on the blog of a small publisher by someone who managed a defunct blog. Interestingly, this blog's archive has labelled itself as being "Social Justice Warrior-free". To be honest, these sources are not particularly useful in writing an article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are enough to demonstrate notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to think we should be very inclusive for any publication that might be used as a source in a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Susmuffin, I would not consider the DMR Books blog a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. The rest are passing mentions, which leaves only one RS with substantial coverage. That's not enough for WP:NCORP (or GNG). b uidhe 20:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems pretty arbitrary to discount a competing publisher's coverage of another magazine, written by a published author that won a few awards of his own. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Wise words. Should be written into some policy or guideline. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have an article kept based on non-existent policies. It is doubtful that we need an article on everything that we cite here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that we should include an article oneverything that happens to be used as a reference, but rather that we should have articles on sources that are likely to be appropriately used to a significant extent. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Headbomb. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a good source, and it specifically calls out Crypt of Cthulhu as a recognized work of media criticism. The fact that it's cited many times in the book H.P. Lovecraft: Selected Works, Critical Perspectives and Interviews on His Influence (Headbomb's seventh link) indicates its importance in this particular subfield. Toughpigs (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2019 (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.