Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans4writers

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 Keep. About the sources, from WP:V: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" (emphasis mine) Pigman☿ 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fans4writers

Fans4writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an interesting one. Doesn't appear to be a notable organization. The four references included in the article are all from blogs. A Google News search comes up with 9 hits, although none seem to be specifically about the organization, but they just have a brief mention of it. Also, a couple of the Google news search results are just comments left on the listed website in response to an article; anybody can add any website they wish to their comments. I tagged it for speedy deletion at first, as it didn't really assert any notability, however that was contested by the SPA creator, I added a reply to the talk page, and removed the speedy notice. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - The group does not appear to be notable. There are only 40 members (according to the article). The articles fails WP:RS, as the article cites blogs, therefore the articles fails the significant coverage requirement of WP:N. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article currently states that members come from more than 40 different fandoms (e.g., fans of Joss Whedon, fans of Ron Moore, fans of Deadwood, etc.), not that there are over 40 fans among the members. Last I checked, there were over 350 registered members on their forums, as many in their Facebook group, and over 250 in their Myspace group. (I have no doubt that there's considerable overlap between the three, granted.) Shmuel (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As of November 20, up to over 450 members on message boards, and over 76,000 hits to website.... Clg0107 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep - I agree that the page as currently written needs work -- including a need for better references -- but I think it can be brought up to par. I'll be editing it some more. (Full disclosure: I'm friends with one of the group's founders. On the other hand, I am not a member and I don't support the current WGA strike, so I don't anticipate any trouble maintaining NPOV.) Shmuel (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to not be notable. Also seems like a temporary organization. --Glennfcowan (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the blogs that are the references aren't just 'Joe Blow Bolgs From His Basement', but blogs of legitimate news outlets -- just because something exists only in the virtual world shouldn't make it less legit a source, especially in the Wikipedia universe in which we live. Should it? Just wondering 12.155.246.10 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)clg0107

  • Comment:
    • Ref. #1 - Personal blog by Joss Whedonwho?.
    • Ref. #2 - Personal blog entry by Dave McNarywho?.
    • Ref. #3 - Personal blog entry by David Sarnowho?.
    • Ref. #4 - Another personal blog entry by somebody.
These are not reliable sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, Joss Whedon is the creator of various television series, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and others. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:

References 2-4 are, respectively, from Variety, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, staff writers/columnists/television bloggers/reporters. To wit:

    • Ref. #2 - Dave McNary
    • Title: Los Angeles Reporter
    • Email: dave.mcnary@variety.com
    • Dave McNary reports on film (Paramount Studios), labor and legislative issues for Variety. McNary has worked for Variety since 1999. He covered show business previously for the Los Angeles Daily News and United Press International (per Variety.com)
    • Ref. #3 - David Sarno
    • David Sarno, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, david.sarno@latimes.com (per LATimes.com)
    • Ref. #4 - Maureen Ryan (will edit original citation to include her name)
    • I'm the television critic at the Chicago Tribune.
    • My email address is moryan@tribune.com. (per ChicagoTribune.com)

Is it necessary to footnote the footnotes?? 12.155.246.10 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)clg0107

Comment: Yes. Their personal blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply: But, how are these 'personal' blogs?? -- They are the blogs that cover news for the authors' respective employers, ergo, they are bloggers for Variety.com, LATimes.com and ChicagoTribune.com. They are earning their paychecks with the stories they cover here, and wearing their hats as correspondents as they do so, no differently than a columnist or reporter in the paper editions of these publications. I would only say that these are 'personal' blogs if it was being done on their own time, on their own Blogspot or LJ accounts, on their own equipment. Which is not what these are...not trying to be difficult, but again, these aren't just random people nattering on in cyber-space...they are entertainment reporters pursuing their vocation. Clg0107 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. Definitely needs better sources, which do exist and are reliable, they're just not noted here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep - This article documents an important, and previously really unprecedented, response amongst the general public in studio affairs; better footnotes should be obtained, better sources do exist, but the notability should not be in dispute. Transcendentalstate (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Reliable sources are needed, not blogs. Blogs sometimes tend to be opinionated, which is not how we work. The article now looks like something about a bunch of fanboys handing out pizza. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Those blasting the references because they're blogs are doing strawman argument in reverse: because *you* did not do due diligence on the sources does not mean they're not valid reliable sources. I really think -- especially after seeing the fracas over the bio page for xkcd comic artist Randall Munroe -- that the notability criterion has to be amended to make clear that to be notable enough for Wikipedia does *not* require that you be notable enough to break 20% recognition in a mall walk-by survey. This is notable, for precisely the reasons that Trancendental notes above. Yes, the article needs to be tagged... but for tone, not for notability. --Baylink (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (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.