Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe

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. Bduke 09:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Baen's Universe

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe
Jim Baen's Universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

On-line Webzine with no independent indication of its notability; fails WP:WEB. Content can be easily merged into the article on the parent company. Fairsing 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm pretty sure this was kind of a big deal when it was first launched. Needs links to establish that of course. Artw 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There we go. Keep Artw 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Baen's Universe is a serious attempt at making a commercially viable, non-copy protected electronic periodical. As such, it is more akin to a professional SF magazine that happens to be distributed electronically. I argue that it meets WP:WEB criteria as follows:
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators
  • The Best of Jim Baen's Universe is available in hardcover from Simon & Schuster.
"When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth" was reprinted in Doctorow's Overclocked: Stories of the Future Present.
In addition, it pays pro rates and is an SFWA | Qualifying Short Fiction Venue. This is entirely separate from Baen Books listing as a | Qualifying Novel Venue. This means that the SFWA, the organization of professional SF authors, thinks it's a separate venue, not just part of Baen Books. If you want, I can also dig up the list of significant authors who are not regularly published by Baen Books but who have appeared in Universe but I don't have that at the moment. I haven't even touched Universe's stance on DRM, which one can argue is actually actually more pertinent to a PDF distributed periodical than to the more traditional Baen Books (which provides both electronic and hard copy product).
I admit this sort of stuff needs to be integrated into the article, especially if its to get out of stub status, but that's an argument about the article content not its existence.
--KNHaw (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've added some of this stuff to the article. --KNHaw (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, changed cite in article of Locus Award to official page rather than author's blog. --KNHaw (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has improved drastically and marshals evidence of notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as article content and primary sources cited are insufficient evidience to meet notablity requirements of WP:WEB. --Gavin Collins 09:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Gavin, could you please let me know how you feel the current article fails WP:WEB? Specifically, which of the three criteria cited above do you feel are not being met and why? I would appreciate more detail so I could see if the article can be modified to address your concerns. --KNHaw (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Response the coverage given from external sources is trivial in nature; the magazine's own website, articles written by contributors to the magazine are not reliable sources. References include awards, but coverage is supprisingly thin; whilst the magazine is mentioned by name, there no other detail - even the judges of these awards have not bothered to write anything that might establish why the awards have been made. Without more coverage from secondary sources, there is no evidence of notabiliy. There are no reviews, analysis or critism from third parties. Notability may come in the future, but none in evidence now. --Gavin Collins 10:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for the reply. As to "not reliable sources" for notability, I don't think I understand what you mean. The article indeed has three footnotes that meet your criticisms, but none of them go to notability (Cory Doctorow regarding the electronic distribution stance, the hard "best of" to show the exception to the "not available in print" comment, and the cite at Baen itself for the comprehensive author list). The award cites that are in the article do not fall into the categories you describe, as they are to the Locus and Hugo websites. The remaining citeis to SFWA (if we use the professional market recognition as notable).
Regarding "coverage is supprisingly thin" for the awards, the Hugo and Locus awards are both based on votes by readers. As such, it's not as if there's a committee like the Nobel prize to write a summary statement/review/praise. No Hugos or Locus awards have such summaries, so you're basically arguing that a Hugo is a non notable award. If you do that, then you will have to do the exact same for the Academy Award or BAFTA Award for film and the Emmy for television.
Also, I have put out a request for further reviews and criticism and a few have been added to the article. Please check them out.
--KNHaw (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per KNhaw; per listed descriptions, it meets all 3 criterial for [{WP:WEB]], and additionally is notable as one of the 17 short fiction venues which qualify for Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America membership as a professional author. This clearly appears to a) be notable and b) meet the established notability criteria completely. Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems notable enough for inclusion to me, based on the references given in the article itself. Rray 19:20, 21 September 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.