Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/365 Tomorrows (2)

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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 365 Tomorrows

Obvious advertising content. It's ranked very low on Alexa (300,000+), fails WP:WEB, and has been deleted before. This is still not notable, and it's still a vanity page. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with haste. Advert/spam/NN/vanity, take your pick.--cjllw | TALK 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I appreciate that on first blush, this may be on the edge of what is clearly defined by the guidelines, however I appreciate your considering my view as to why it should be included. I did read the original notice of deletion prior to creating this entry, and agree that to create an entry 2 days after the sites launch was extremely premature, and I would have recommended it for deletion had I been around at that point. I feel that there is enough here presently to merit inclusion, both based the quality of this entry as well as in the track record of this project. Note that I am actively fleshing out this entry as I am able to collect information.

The intent of this entry isn't advertising, rather my intention is to provide relevant information about a project that I think represents the best of what the internet is all about. Free literary content in a time when long established SciFi sites are closing down (for example SciFi.com). For people interested in Flash Fiction, Speculative Fiction and easily accessible Science Fiction, the content here exemplifies all three. There is currently only superficial information available about the authors, and my intention is to provide more in-depth bios here. The content is being translated independently into multiple languages and being reposted around the world by people who have been inspired by the content itself. I think that in this era where online publication of quality fiction is fast becoming as relevant as print publishing, this site represents a significant and ground breaking contribution to the Science Fiction and Flash Fiction genre, and as such, deserves to be included here. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 14:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete We appreciate your input but we can only allow articles for sites that meet the guidlines for notability. You article will be more than welcome once said site gains that notability. Don't let this experiance put you off contributing to wikipedia though. Ydam 14:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand you are trying to keep this site free of self serving content, however this is not. When I discovered 365 last fall, I looked here to find more information about the project and the writers, and didn't find any. I'm trying to rectify that now, and I'm a little unclear on what constitutes notability. The site has been specifically noted in print in Popular Science magazine, as well as unsolicited mentions online from the likes of Warren Ellis and Cory Doctorow, both signicant members of the literary community, and both with their own entries on this site. The authors are being invited to large SciFi conventions to speak as panelists, which I think legitimizes what they're doing. One of the authors has content in print in a brick and mortor retailer, and another has a book of short stories available in paperback online, a format that authors like Cory Doctorow have embraced as being a viable means of distribution. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The guidlines at WP:WEB will help you in deciding/proving notability. Ydam 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Herein lies my confusion - the guideline here: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. ^ Examples: The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

If this is an indication of notability, then shouldn't having been reviewed in Popular Science meet the standard here?

If a webcomic like 'When I Am King' rates an entry, I don't see how 365 does not. If you look at the Alexa data for the 2 sites, demian5.com (the host of wheniamking) rates 768,036, while 365 rates 341,431 --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• --Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The criteria refers to inclusion in multiple non-trivial published works. Popular Science is only one, and its reference to 365 Tomorrows has not yet been cited. Barneyboo (Talk) 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article appeared in the Feb 2006 printed mag - page 88 - i've got a scan that I can post, but i'm not sure how the copyright mechanism works for posting scans of printed publications. If someone can clear that up for me, i'll post a link to the image as served from my website.--Ssmith@alignsoft.com 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One mention is not enough, unless it's a major presentation in a significant publication maybe, but should still have wider notability. Page 88 doesn't convince, I'm afraid. Tyrenius 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Make more of an impact with it first and then return... Tyrenius 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

-DictatorGangstaEB-18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ydam. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well - it looks like I'm on the losing end of this discussion, and i must say I'm disappointed. There doesn't seem to be much to do at this point but give in to the inevitable.

If this was a commercial site flogging a product, then I wouldn't be here trying to make note of them. Rather this is what I think should be a model for literary distribution on the internet, and an excellent example of the free sharing of meaningful ideas. With so many people flogging crap, I think this stands head and shoulders above the examples I think you're lumping it in with. When I stumbled onto it last fall it was single handedly responsible for inspiring me to start writing again after a 10 year hiatus. I think that if you spent some time reading the content there you'd appreciate the value and might be a little more receptive to my trying to put the project and it's authors into a more formal context.

I must say that the fact that When I Am King rates an entry, and this does not simply blows my mind.

If I'm to understand correctly, another mention in a tangible publication of some significance is enough to meet the burden here? I will bring this back to the table when it does meet your guidelines more completely, and I'd prefer not to waste anyones time.

Thanks for your attention. --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Your comment "this is what I think should be a model for literary distribution on the internet" is very revealing. Whether ot not you are associated with the site, your intent to promote it comes across very strongly. I think that that prompted the unanimous rejection of your article as much as the lack of references.
  Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. It's a place to describe things in a neutral way that don't need promotion. (See WP:NPOV and WP:VANITY for more information.) And I would suggest that you—and anyone in your position—should contribute to Wikipedia for a while, fixing typos and adding information to existing articles—and thereby getting a good feel for how Wikipedia works, and what it's culture, philosophy and goals are—before starting to create articles about your favorite website, band, author etc. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not intended as promotion - it happens that some of the content I felt was relevant and was readily available as a starting point was from their website. You'll notice that I was evolving the entry continually trying to collect more outside information right up the point that it was slapped with a deletion notice. I honestly wasn't aware that i'd find myself defending the validity of the article before i'd had a chance to flesh it out. As for spending more time here, I've been consuming the content for ages, however this is the first time I've actually tried to contribute to it, and it's obviously not going so well. I picked this as it's an entry I went looking for myself not that long ago, and I'm in a position where I can assemble the relevant content. I had thought that what I had to offer here had some value, and I'm sorry you don't seem to agree.

Like I said, there's content in here that's equally if not more questionable as to it's validity and relevance. I do, however, appreciate that you have to be fairly aggressive in your efforts to keep the signal to noise ratio up, so I don't begrudge you this rejection. I think I'd be taking it a bit better if there was some acknowledgement of the fact that I am making an effort to contribute, and if there was some help being offered instead of a page of 'read the rules' and 'Delete' badges. I have no more spare time than I'm sure any of you have, and I've read the rules and thought that I was following at least the spirit of them as the letter is somewhat vague. My field is software development, not law, so I'm used to a little more latitude in the implementation.

In any event, i think this is done. I still would appreciate confirmation that another review in a print publication would meet the burden, and I'd also like someone to acknowledge that 5 authors producing 280+ works of short fiction at least in theory should rate as more respectable than a web comic that's described as 'a wordless infinite canvas webcomic', citing Playboy as one of it's references in print. I'm not being hostile, I'm just a little frustrated and dissappointed, and I hope you can appreciate that.

Cheers, --Ssmith@alignsoft.com 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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.