Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Fiction Online

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiction Online[edit]

Non-notable online literary magazine. Serious conflict of interest is present as well, as the article creator is also the editor of the magazine. He even links to his userpage on the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm on the fence. (Disclosure: I submitted a story to them in the past) 5200 visitors a month with 1000 subscribers is not a lot and the article is about a mag that is less than a year old. On the other hand, it pays professional rates (many new online publications don't) and they have notable columnists. Right now these are the external links:
- Duotrope Digest listing for Flash Fiction Online (print market engine)
- "Glossary of Terms". Duotrope's Digest. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. (explains the term professional market)
- "Membership Requirements". SFWA. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. (further backs up previous term)
- Ralan's Specfic and Humor Webstravaganza professional listings page (another print market engine)
- Bruce Holland Rogers's Author Page at Flash Fiction Online, showing "Short-Short Sighted" column entries (column on own website).

In other words, this needs some serious references if it is to stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability for this market has already been established on the Flash Fiction page in the discussion section. It's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the magazine and the creator of the entry. When I initially created the article for the 'zine, I specified the ways in which the magazine is notable. If the question relates to conflict of interest (which I don't see explicitly mentioned in the deletion policy), why not tag it with NPOV instead? While I think the language is pretty objective, I am open to making it more objective if people take issue with it.

The circulation isn't large, but popularity isn't the only thing that differentiates one magazine from others: Consider that "Indira Ghandi" gets 62,000 hits on Google, while "Britney Spears" gets 91 million. I have Hugo and Bram Stoker award-winning authors on the site, among others, and as of this month (November 2008) Flash Fiction Online is the only flash fiction-only magazine to have completed all of the qualifications for being listed as a professional magazine by the SFWA. (The application is in, but I haven't received word back from them yet.)

Please note that I am not trying to use Wikipedia to increase my circulation. When you search for "Flash Fiction" in Wikipedia, you get the Flash Fiction entry, not the Flash Fiction Online entry; when you search for "Flash Fiction" in Google, Flash Fiction Online is already #2, right behind (surprise!) the Flash Fiction Wikipedia entry. Less than 1% of the current entries in my log show that someone entered from the Flash Fiction Online Wikipedia page. So I'm not gaming the system here, I'm just making sure that this publication has an entry.Jdfreivald (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs more sources to demonstrate notability, but a simple lack of sources included in the article is not enough to delete, unless the sources simply do not exist. Based on the article, they seem to be notable, though the magazine editor being the major author of the article makes this a difficult call. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added two references to the article: rankings in Preditors & Editors poll (fictionzine and artist), and CNN.com reference.Jdfreivald (talk) 12:37, 14 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.