Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Day Fiction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Day Fiction

[edit]
Every Day Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable online literary magazine. The main contributor is also the editor of the magazine, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, sorry - in that case, I will still vote delete due to the lack of third-party coverage. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O/t, but I have to wonder why there aren't any rules about COI. I mean, we have articles about how it's wrong, but whenever someone writes an article about themselves, the general reaction is "Weeelll...we discourage it but we're not going to do anything about it either."--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. How is Every Day Fiction less notable than Flash Fiction Online (whose article is also is written by the editor), Quick Fiction, or Flash Me? All have wikipedia articles, but have less traffic and exposure than EDF. Also, there has already been a discussion on notability on the talk page of Flash Fiction where wikipedia editors felt that EDF was notable enough to be mentioned. Certainly, if Every Day Fiction passes the notability test there, it should pass here. As for "editor as contributor", would it help if I asked someone on our forums to write the article? The page itself is non-promotional and doesn't try to sell anything. Indeed it's only a stub.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs)
See WP:WAX. Although I'll be sure to look into those links you mentioned and see if they are deletion worthy. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you flagged Flash Fiction Online's article, despite the discussion in the talk pages of Flash Fiction. Since the matter had already been settled there, I think the deletion is unwarranted. In any case, I took a look at WP:WAX, and this line jumped out at me: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Coupled with EDF's enormous (for a webzine) traffic, unique format, mention in the Wall Street journal, and high technorati rating, this should be enough to keep the article. I mean, we have more unique visitors per month than either Clarkesworld Magazine or Interzone, both of which are considered major magazines in sf circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, if it's notable, then why did the creator of the website have to be the one to start the article? Second, as for WP:WAX. My basic argument was "Just because article x exists and is similar to article y for whatever reasons, that alone does mean that either of them deserve to be kept. (For the record, one of the articles you mentioned was speedily deleted.) As for the Wall Street Journal link...its basically little more than a small blurb. "Things to check out on the web this week" and a little two sentence write up. Also, both Clarkesworld and Interzone both have received a number of prestigious awards from what little I've seen of their articles. Nothing indicates that with EDF.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every Day Fiction is rated very highly on the "Stumbleupon" listings, and receives a very large amount of traffic from stumbleupon users alone. Every day fiction is also high up on google and Duotropelistings. The webzine has also posted close to four hundred stories, meaning that this page would be valid for at least the contributors to Every Day Fiction.
Every Day Fiction also hosts a writing forum and a writing group. Many authors reference to Every Day Fiction in their writing blogs and many more display their Every Day Fiction stories on their various portfolios. The reason the main contributing editor of this article is the editor of the magazine is that the community at Every Day Fiction have entrusted the task of this desired page onto the person we trust to be able to give us the Wikipedia article we need. --MFSherlock (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the first newly registered SPA arrives. I was wondering when that was going to happen.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I appreciate what you're trying to do for Wikipedia. I can certainly see how the site could get clogged with small zines. However, EDF has a large number of subscribers, a format different from other ezines, and is relevant based on the discussion on the Flash Fiction page. I mean, NO small ezine is relevant according to your arguments, but certainly you can't be considering wiping out all their entries? The SPA happened because the argument that I wrote the entry is senseless. I could have asked any of a number of forum posters to create it and wikipedia would never have known the difference. Heck, I could have done it anonymously. Re: Wall Street Journal--You're judging relevance based on what? That entry not only appeared online, but also in print. Certainly the editors of the Wall Street Journal deemed it relevant enough to waste ink on it. Finally, I just won first place in Writers of the Future, one of those "prestigious awards" you mentioned. As managing editor, certainly that gives the magazine relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noted that this article is being edited by others, which should talk care of the COI problem, especially since the wording of the article isn't promotional in any way. Also, I added a section on awards to include the placement in the Preditors and Editors Readers Choice Awards. I can add my Writers of the Future win, as well, if you'd like. Is there anything else I (or the EDF forum members) can do to further establish relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what e-zine you're talking about. You mentioned Clarkesworld and Interzone. Those pass the notability test. And while the COI does factor in a bit, removing the COI doesn't make it any more notable for inclusion. In this case, all it did was alert me to the COI logs, but someone else would have probably stumbled upon it anyways and have similar concerns.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hold us responsible for the name-calling. If wikipedia were held responsible for the actions of third parties they would have been sued many times over. I know that you're doing a good thing for wikipedia, even if, in this case, I believe that EDF does qualify for inclusion. I asked forum members to comment to take care of the conflict of interest problem, which according to the remarks at the top of this page, isn't a valid reason to delete anyways. So we're dealing strictly with the notability problem only, which I believe I've address above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't holding you or the site responsible for namecalling (that was just an aside on my apart; I could care less about that tbh) but rather the requests for people to vote in the discussion and whether or not they are neutral third parties or not. I'll respond to your other questions above later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a "talk" and filled out the survey to show I'm a real legitimate person. The question I want to pose is every one who reads Every Day Fiction is an "interested party." Once they read it and enjoy it, they are vested. How does a third party come about? Although the mention in the Wall Street Journal is small it is definitely recognition by a "third party." Someone at that esteemed publication read EDF and thought it worthy of comment. They became "vested." I consider that a good thing and a strong recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaia 101 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) </nowiki>[reply]
The Wall Street Journal's section is little more than a brief mention and by itself does not constitute as 'significant coverage' on the subject. Literally all it says is "Fiction features a new short story every 24 hours. The first line from a recent entry: "' woman sat in a brown cubicle, unplugged. She went to get coffee from the lunchroom. When she took out the milk from the refrigerator, the milk bottle spoke'." That's it. And your argument that everyone who reads it automatically becomes an interested party is faulty as well--my problem is that people associated with the site (as you clearly are) are being asked on the forum to come in and vote in favor of the article being kept. This happens a lot on Wikipedia deletion discussions, which is why I may come off as a 'sarky little git' in the situation as it's tiring.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the remark. However i used to check regulary to see if we had a wikipedia page up, and as soon as i would have seen this...i would have discussed on this topic whether Jordan asked on the forum or not. I'm not an SPA account either, i have been on wikipedia previously and edited...however i couldnt remember my account details so i made this one. The fact we are on duotrope would make this a nessescity if anything. For example, if someone was to find us on duotrope, they could then check us out on wikipedia and see what the deal was. i would also like to add that any namecalling and personal attacks etc took place AWAY from wikipedia, and thus hold no weight or relevance on this discussion, and as such are not a point you can raise towards our deletion.--MFSherlock (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, the namecalling was never part of my argument for deletion, it was just an aside. It would be ridicilous of me to actually use that one isolated comment as leverage for it's deletion. My problem was the admin going on the messageboard and asking the members to come onto this discussion to vote 'keep', which has happened numerous times in similar AFDs and is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. (And for the record, since you asked on the forum, the reason why I read the forum in the first place because I was suspicious of all the newly registered users coming on the AFD and article's talk page, so I looked up the official site to see if there were any calls to post on the Wikipedia page... and found one within seconds.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i just get the chills when i think of people keeping tabs on me and my friends. I would put the whole forum post thing down more to Jordan being new to wikipedia (if he is) and i would treat it more as a newcomer mistake, so maybe you could help us in establishing the page for wikipedia and making it fit for keeping? I must say im not totally wise on all this.--MFSherlock (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly 'keeping tabs'. I noticed some suspicious behavior and I took literally five seconds to see if the site was asking people to vote in, which it was. It's not like I'm hiding in your garbage can rummaging for evidence. Sheesh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I was going to ask forum member to contribute in an earlier thread. I wasn't trying to hide anything from you at all. I didn't ask anyone to vote to keep the article either, I simply asked them to find more details and references for the wikipedia page. We get hundreds of links from across the internet (at least a couple a day), so I was hoping they could track down some of the more pertinent ones, and also fill in the content, since apparently I was not allowed to do. You seem to have a combative attitude (misreading the thread in question), which is really not helpful, and deleting the other articles I mentioned was just petulant. Is there someone more impartial we can deal with?204.244.176.97 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I didn't delete anything and if this article gets deleted I won't be the one to do so. Another administrator reviewed the articles, assessed as to whether or not they should stay and he or she deleted them. If you feel that they should have stayed, then you should bring it up to Deletion Review and maybe they'll be brought back.
And no one ever said that you weren't allowed to contribute on the article. If you can add relevant information, then go ahead.
As for wanting someone else to participate...that's not how it works. I don't see how I'm not being impartial to this either as I don't have any personal vendetta against the site. I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion, but that's another matter entirely. Although I don't see how an editor/moderator/established member of a website can remain neutral on the matter either.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that the WJS mention alone may not be enough to establish notability. I'm sorry to accuse CyberGhostface of not being impartial, but you're cherry picking on notability. The WSJ is only a part of the argument raised above. Let's lay out the rest:
- Top 10 placing in Preditors and Editors Reader's Choice awards in two categories
- Managing Editor has won a major literary award (Writers of the Future.
- Has a PageRank of 5 (Notable to Google), with hundreds of incoming links from authors, and a Technorati authority of 100.
- Is publishing a hard copy "Best-Of" anthology.
- Has been deemed Notable on the Flash Fiction page.
- Has greater traffic then several award-winning pro-paying zines.
Please make your recommendation based on all the arguments that have been raised.Jordan Lapp (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where it was deemed notable on the Flash Fiction page?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the discussion page. Criteria for Market Relevance are established by User:DaveClapper and Jdfeivald. I'm not sure how a market can be relevant, but not notable. In any case, that is just one of the arguments I posted above. Surely all those points together add up to enough notability to remain in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.176.97 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Every_Day_Fiction&oldid=1070191710"