Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFiction

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. Sandstein 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

EFiction[edit]

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

Self-published electronic magazine with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG. There are currently no hard & fast guidelines for notability of magazines, just an essay at WP:NMAGAZINE, but I can find no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing coverage in a few blogs of unknown reliability. Currently ranked at number 55 in Amazon's "Arts & Entertainment Magazines" section, but this can of course change overnight, ~~so that alone~~ and that alone doesn't seem sufficient to bring it over the notability threshold. Scopecreep (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows the discussion that took place on the article's talk page. It would have been proper for this discussion to have actually been a discussion, but Scopecreep has not responded directly to anything nor made a case in response. As for the fact that ratings change daily, that is not a pertinent observaction, since all relative ratings of anything do fluctuate. If this is the crux of his argument, it is refuted by a specific line of Wikipedia's notability criteria, Notability is not temporary: "WP:NOTTEMPORARY Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

(good-faith paste of the whole of Talk:EFiction reverted, and reply moved to talk page. No need to duplicate it here, just link.) Scopecreep (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scopecreep's only argument is not even that the subject is not notable, but that it could POSIIBLY become non-notable, and thus fails to address the issue of notability because notability does not have to be ongoing, and because even if that were the criteria, he can only offer the possibility that such notability could, hypotethically, lapse. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies if my nomination was unclear: I'm arguing that its sole apparent claim to notability so far is ranking 55 on one sub-section of Amazon's magazines, and that even that is subject to disappearance overnight. I'm not asserting that if it were permanently high up in Amazon's ranking then that alone would make it notable: I'm only saying that that's the strongest claim made for its notability, which is not sufficient on its own. Since it hasn't yet been the subject of significant coverage, WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't really apply here: it's not a question of it being temporarily non-notable, because there's no evidence yet that it ever was notable. If you'd like to move the article to a WP:User subpage until such time as it does become notable enough for inclusion, I'd be happy to agree. Scopecreep (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've corrected the rationale above to make clear why I think it's not yet notable. Scopecreep (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scopecreep, that seems like a purely subjective decision to ignore that piece of evidence. I think I can rely on other editors not to dismiss the rankings out of hand. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to join this discussion. A magazine is notable if it has readers and the Amazon ranking proves that eFiction has readers. mglenden —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC). — mglenden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mglenden (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to join in the discussion you should read WP:N and WP:GNG to see what notability means on Wikipedia. Lots of things have readers but aren't sufficiently important to get Wikipedia pages. The magazine must be important in some way, which is generally demonstrated by showing other people discussing it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's plenty of demonstration that people are discussing it. I don't know if you've taken the time to follow the links, but in the e-publishing world it's being discussed significantly. Unsurprisingly, the e-publishing community is electronic forum for the most part. I not only suggest that the easily verified tertiary source of Amazon's ranking establishes this credibility by itself, but that it is an artificial and inappropriate demand, that the significance of electronic publications be verified by print-published discussions.

I have indeed read the Wikipedia criteria, and while I agree that notability is only very narrowly established -- through the fewest possible sources -- I strongly affirm that the notability is, nonetheless, established. I first heard of eFiction through an offer on my Kindle, signed up for a free trial of its contents and was startled by the quality relative to other, traditionally operated fiction magazines, of which I am an experienced reader. I then immediately went to Wikipedia to learn more about eFiction and was disappointed to find no article. I then did a more investigative Web search and found that eFiction appeared to be a pioneer in a new combination between collaborative and commercial content. Believing this was extremely noteworthy, I went to at least start an article stub -- knowing I might have to argue for its continuance while others contributed, since I've seen my stubs deleted out of seeming reflex by editors demanding they be large and lavishly footnoted before collaboration is invited -- and then discovered that an article had been started just days before by other editors.

I am pleased to learn that editor Scopecreep was also involved in searching for other sources to bolster the article before tagging it for deletion, though the article had been completely blanked previously by someone else instead of labeling it as a stub and inviting improvements or discussion. I am glad that the deletion tag was replaced with a deletion proposal complete with discussion page.

I propose that it is best that the content-improvement tags remain while the story is improved. Coverage itself evolves and, while it is possible that eFiction may drop off the ratings of Amazon's magazines list without having caught the interest of a major print news outlet, I think ignoring a solid tertiary source and multiple trade forums is not warranted. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to fall under the category of 'Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity' in the notability guidelinesWP:SPIP. I looked for independent and reliable coverage of this electronic magazine online and I could not find any. The only mentions I found of this electronic magazine, besides its own accounts, were forum posts & blog posts by people with a vested interest in the magazine (ie, contributors, published writers, or independent bloggers who stand to gain exposure through their association with the electronic magazine). The two interviews cited on the article's page are from blogs which are not themselves noteworthy or reliable, and the one source from an established site (the duotrope interview) seems to be a simple form submission and not a critical, unbiased, or personal review.

This goes into the second point of the self-promotion criteria under notability guidelines: an impartial and neutral article cannot be guaranteed by biased sources. The only sources I have been able to find, and the only sources on the article page, may be independent, but have not demonstrated reliability or an absence of bias.

Unique to this entry is the discussion of its Amazon ranking: 55 in a subsection of a subsection of Amazon rankings. The claim has been made that it outsells Newsweek on the Kindle: this is false. Newsweek is #11 in rankings of all magazines and efiction is not even in the top 100. It may outsell Newsweek in the subsection of Arts and Entertainment, but this is because Newsweek is primarily a news magazine and not an entertainment magazine. This discrepancy highlights the unreliability of subcategory ranking on Amazon and casts a shadow upon this entry's main notability defense. Leavethelighton (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— Leavethelighton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm still not convinced notability has been established. None of the sources on the article are unambiguously reliable sources by Wikipedia's criteria. Notability must be established by multiple in-depth references in reliable sources. There's no hard-and-fast definition of reliable sources, and they can be online, in print, or on tv/radio, but there are various guidelines: Are they self-published (bad) or produced by a commercial non-vanity publisher (good)? Does the publisher edit and fact-check contributions before publication? Are contributions written by professional journalists/academics/people trained in writing factual content? Is the source publication itself notable i.e. does it have a Wikipedia article, or could a WP article be written? Has the source got a significant publishing history or did it start last week? I've seen a lot of interest about e-publishing and self-published e-books in the mainstream press lately, so I don't believe the arguments that "the mainstream press doesn't cover e-books so of course there are no reliable sources", but even if that were true, we can't trust random people's blogs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To support the notability of the eFiction Magazine, today I added the recent interview of its editor, Doug Lance, by the The Kindle Chronicles (http://www.thekindlechronicles.com) to its Wikipedia entry. This excerpt from the Wikipedia notability webpage which defines "The barometer of notability...." supports eFiction's notability viability. "...people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." MarieGlendenning 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglenden (talk • contribs)

Weak delete. It comes down to the reliability clause in WP:GNG, and the sources in the article are either self-published or are interviews. That calls into question the editorial scrutiny of the interviews. If there were articles written about the magazine from a strictly third-party perspective, such as reviews of the site, that could tip the scale in my mind toward keeping the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the interview at The Kindle Chronicles. The Kindle Chronicles page has a personalized link to the eFiction website and is an affiliate of the magazine. The Kindle Chronicle interview falls under WP:QS more specifically, a conflict of interest because of its financial interest in eFiction. ALL the cited sources have questionable reliability (per WP:QS or WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:SOURCES). Without any reliable third-party sources, the subject cannot claim notability (both under WP:GNG as well as WP:SPIP which requires independent coverage "without incentive, promotion, or other influence"). If reliable third-party coverage can be found, the article may be able to establish notability, but as it stands now, I cannot see a reason to keep it. Leavethelighton (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2012 (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.