Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction Press

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction Press

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

I personally have no vested interest in whether or not this article gets deleted or not, but it appears that User:JustinMullins has unilaterally recreated this article, as opposed to User:Aaron Brenneman's speedy delete on the grounds that it was: an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject, a claim that was upheld through deletion review. The deletion of the original FictionPress article (now a redirect) was, in my opinion, poorly handled, so I'd like to give it a throw through the official Afd gauntlet. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undecided - not enough information If it's to be deleted, you might want to also consider deleting FanFiction.Net. I don't find either website fascinating, and I don't know how to find out if hundreds of thousands of people have actually written the words on those websites. If all those people have actually posted that stuff, the websites are obviously attractive and well-known. But the websites also might be generating credibility via their Wikipedia articles' high-listing on Google search. Is there some way to find out if the articles in FanFiction.Net and and Fiction Press are truly written by individuals or somehow concocted by the website owner(s)? Technically, I believe the thing could be a big fraud. But it might not be. Can someone contact the website owner(s) and request verification of independent user submission of content? If these websites are truly serving a popular desire to publish fiction online, I'd say the websites are notable and should be listed in Wikipedia. If it's all a fraud, we still might want to keep the articles -- but say that these websites are a fraud. We're here for the readers. --SueHay 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • SueHay, a thoughtful response, but the existence of other bad articles has no bearing on this nomination. While one may intuit popularity from a website's usage statistics, popularity is not notability. (Also, Wikipedia uses nofollow in external links, so we ourselves do not influence Google PageRank, although some mirrors may.) The website owners may well provide "verification", but their assurances would still fail our verifiability policy as they cannot be easily falsified. The police we stick to is attribution of claims of notability or importance from reliable, independent sources.--Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. Fiction Press is a spin-off from the FanFiction.Net website. I didn't mean to bring up an unrelated article. And I didn't mean to suggest that Wikipedia directly affects a website's hit counts in Google. But when I google a topic, if there's a Wikipedia article on that topic, it comes up on the first page or two of my Google list, usually the first page. For instance, if I google "Duryog", the Wikipedia article Duryog Nivaran comes up second on the search results, even though the article is a stub created on January 21. That stub will generate traffic to its external link http://www.duryognivaran.org/duryog/ whether Google counts it or not. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here. (Sorry to be so long-winded.) --SueHay 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Suehay, regarding your request for information on whether or not the website is legit, from my personal experience, yes, it is. Mildly popular, although no where near FanFiction.Net. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk)
    • Surely, then, this argues for deleteion, since arguing from "personal experience" breaches the inviolable rule against original research. Unless sufficient objective and reliable sources can be found, information cannot appear on WIki – or so the cabal keep telling us -- Simon Cursitor 08:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • These sources do not establish notability, but may establish legitimacy: [1] [2] [3]. Also, there is no reason to believe the site's supplied statistics "half a million writers/readers, and home to over 900,000 original works" are falsified: they can be calculated by summing the story counts on the front page, and these further verified by multiplying page-counts by items per page (but this is all original research, teehee). — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As written, this article fails WP:ATT--there are no sources given for its assertions of notability. If it remains unsourced by the end of the AfD, it must be deleted. If sources are eventually found, it could possibly be re-created at a future date. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Carolfrog with no prejudice. No assertion or citation of notability, burden is on the article creators to improve that. -Markeer 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 133,000 hits for fictionpress and 4th place hit for "fiction" — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• When I perform the search for "fictionpress" I only get 4 pages of results, i.e. less than 40 hits. JulesH 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree that it fails WP:WEB. I think we all know that "hits" can be quite deceiving. JodyB 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is fairly clear that this is independent submission of content, but that doesn't make it N. If it has 500,0000 little stories and poems, it can easily arrange the site so that it will have at least one ghit for each, read or unread--I am surprised at the modest number found. To the extent the readers talk about stories on their own blogs, it will have more (these is of course the usual internal discussion blog for each story). There is a perfectly good place for the limited material in this article, and that is in the existing section for it on FanFiction.Net. The article on that is a meaningful article: it discusses the site and its history, and it would be best to have the one. DGG 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to FanFiction.net Only 31 ghits on the site's name, which is rather poor for a web site. No evidence of notability provided via other means. Where are the reliable sources written about this site? Re. the concerns that one might also have to delete the FanFiction.net page: there are many articles in various places that have been written about that site, so by the same rule it should be kept. JulesH 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JulesH, check your google search parameters. I think "&hl=en&safe=off&start=30&sa=N" will only give you N english-language websites, starting with the 30th item found. I've had that happen to me before. Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) got the full hit count. --SueHay 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The URL I used was the one produced by google itself after going to the main page, entering "fictionpress", and clicking on the "4" link. If something in it limits the number of results returned, it was added by google. JulesH 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Identical results are achieved with this simpler query. JulesH 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The extra hits were filtered out by Google's "Similar Pages" feature, although I'm not sure why it doesn't kick in before you reach the fourth page. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting 132,000 hits on that simpler query, starting with hit #31. But I don't see a "4" link on the page. Maybe there was a problem with google.co.uk. It seems ok now. --SueHay 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Fanfiction.net article, unless more convincing evidence for notability comes forth. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:10, 1 May 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.