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. I have discared every spa vote. This leaves the argument that there are sources and this swayed one delete to a keep but there has been a decent analysis of the sources and the argument that they do not count as RSs for notability appears well founded and has not been challenged by any experienced editor. The policy based consensus from experienced editors is that this is not properly sourced so the counsensus is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birkensnake[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Birkensnake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, by the creator, with no improvement to the article. Original prod reason - No evidence that the publication, as opposed to one of the entries, is in any way notable. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I vote to keep. This is a notable publication as it has showcased several important authors and it also won the premier literary award of its class last year. If this publication isn't notable, what small press literary magazine is? Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD was malformatted; Flash Bang Man added their comment first and then the IP came back to add a deletion reason. I re-formatted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 4 reviews and 1 award? Isn't this notable? Lionel (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Micro Award may not be notable. It's a $500 prize. Anyway, I just prodded it. Lionel (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - I have listed Micro Award as an AfD (contested prod). --23 Benson (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable per reviews and awards, Sadads (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sole award was not for this publication.Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semantics Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many reviews throughout the net and several awards - certainly notable. 79.52.145.62 (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 79.52.145.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this vote was this editor's first edit. They only have 3 total.Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should go by the strength of his argument, not his number of edits.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • — JakobBorliner22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sometimes have a lot to do with each other, and that goes for you too (with ten edits, half of them related to this article). Drmies (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I trust that my opinions will be weighed on their merit, not on my number of edits.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The significant number of reviews and references make it notable. I would like to see the article fleshed out. EgglandManor (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any reviews besides blogs?Lionel (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of the reviews I clicked on weren't blogs.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes they were--if you clicked on the ones mentioned in the article. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources there now aren't blogs. If you would like to add a blog as a source, it would be best to discuss it on the talk page first. That way you can get a consensus on whether it is reliable or not.HeartSWild (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • — HeartSWild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doing a little source checking reveals that Birkensnake (as well as several other flash fiction articles) suffer from extremely poor sourcing, i.e. blogs and personal websites. It's hard to find significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Hopefully voters here take this into consideration... Lionel (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reviews are blogs: not WP:RS. The "award" was not for Birkensnake, it was for "The Children’s Factory" (it's a red link because it too is not notable). In any event, the Micro Award is not notable either, and it is not a premiere literary award by any measure.Lionel (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons mentioned above. I checked out all the refrences currently used and they are all valid. Magazine exceeds notability criteria.JakobBorliner22 (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (Change to keep for reasons explained below, in response to the additional reviews). Non-notable magazine. The second edition was noted by two bloggers, [1] and [2] (yes, JakobBorliner, those are blogs, and I linked the term so you can see what it is), and that's it. Lionelt's point about the award is well taken. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think birkensnake meets the notability criteria with the reviews and awards on the web. Beastwarts (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think a lot of people who are voting !keep are confused, so let's clear this up - Birkensnake has NOT won any awards. One story in a single issue has won. The publication itself has not won anything. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for everyone here, but I never took this to mean that the magazine itself won an award. The article in question very clearly states that one of the magazine's stories received an award. What's the issue?JakobBorliner22 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I′m one of the editors of Birkensnake (Brian Conn). A Google alert for “Birkensnake” brought me here. I edited the article a couple of days ago, primarily to include the other editor′s name, and have checked the discussion occasionally since then. I don′t have any argument to make about whether Birkensnake is or is not notable, but I wanted to set some things straight and clarify some facts in case they will further the discussion:

1. There seems to be an insinuation that some of the people voting to keep the article are agents of Birkensnake. In fact, neither I nor the other editor has had anything to do with this article (except my minor edit, as described above). I suppose one of our contributors or friends might have, but if so nobody has said anything to me about it.
2. We have not won (or applied for) any awards as a magazine.
3. Since the question of reviews keeps coming up: Issue 2 got long reviews in Big Other, Art + Culture, and Rat′s Reading, plus shorter notices in HTMLGIANT, Luna Digest's Fictionaut Blog, and PubliCola, and also a profile/interview thing in Black Clock. The working definition of the term “blog” seems to be in dispute here; I don′t offer any opinion about whether these are blogs or not. 24.250.21.249 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• — 24.250.21.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for weighing in. Do you have URLs for those reviews? Blogs by themselves are usually not notable, but a bunch of them might add up to something. Good luck getting the third issue together. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, should have said: Big Other, Art + Culture, Rat's Reading, HTMLGIANT, Fictionaut, PubliCola, Black Clock. Thanks, Drmies – Issue 3 binding begins tomorrow! 24.250.21.249 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change to keep. While these are indeed blogs, some of them are better than others; I am favorably impressed with the Art + Culture blog, and the number of positive reviews is good. To many of the other keep voters: the way to sway other editors is by presenting evidence, not by yelling at them or making arguments from taste. Brian, all the best, and I'll be looking for a copy in my mailbox! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Welcome to the club, Drmies. I'm glad you came around. :) Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No comment. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am a fan of the magazine so maybe I'm biased, but I think it's certainly a notable lit magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceyGanmons (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — StaceyGanmons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I, like the editor, found this page with google. At least it's giving you free press, right? I've been surfing wikipedia for a few years now, but this is my first edit. Take my opinion for what it's worth. The question comes down to whether or not the reviews and the award make this entry viable. There appeared to be some confusion as to what the award was for. The way the entry currently reads, it's very clear that the award was for a story within Birkensnake and not for Birkensnake itself. The entry may not have always been that clear, but it is now. Moreover, it's still significant for Birkensnake that a story within Birkensnake received an award. Maybe not as significant had Birkensnake itself won the award, but it still adds some substance to the claim that Birkensnake is viable as an entry. As for the reviews, there is a glut of reviews on the web. It's debatable which ones are considered blogs and which ones are considered reliable. There's not a clear distinction between the two, even as defined by wikipedia. Between the award (for a story within Birkensnake) and the many independent reviews, Birkensnake is undoubtedly viable as a wikipedia entry. EdwinChowder (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — EdwinChowder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to the article, the first issue received little attention. The second - more, but how much? And the third isn't out yet. Could it perhaps be that this article has appeared in time to give a boost to issue three? (Perhaps I spend too much time dealing with spam...) Oh yes, "binding begins tomorrow". While I do wish success to Birkensnake, I don't feel that this article fits in with Wikipedia's policies yet. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it with these anti-snakes and their conspiracy theories? I think you owe the editor an apology. Especially after he even identified himself! I am in no way connected to birkensnake. I only created the article after doing an edit on micro award. it was the one publisher of a winner that didn't have its own page. it didnt take a whole lot of effort to find info on birkensnake either.Flash Bang Man (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a writer myself, I have nothing against literary magazines. As a Wikipedian, I don't feel this one is particularly notable yet. Couple more issues, maybe something more will turn up. There are plenty of things one can turn up info on that will never get a place on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't write for the New York Times, do you? I wasn't talking about whether or not Birkensnake is worthy with my last post. I was talking about you loose accusation that the Birkensnake editor was using this as publicity. Are you going to apologize for this completely baseless and slanderous claim?Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash, anyone who has spent any time at all watching AfD has seen promotional articles so Peridon's speculation, and that's all it was, was not improper. I've noticed your tone becomming increasingly defensive and maybe we all should calm down a little.Lionel (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your right. It just came accross kind of like an accusation. Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP even the reviews that are blogs (and not all of them are) easily fit within wiki's criteria for a reliably source. they are blogs by people respected in literature and short literature, not blogs by random nobodys. the only place where blogs are prohibited by wikipedia are in biographies. this is not a biography. an easy KEEP.Cartersfriendly (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very, very incorrect. Blogs can be reliable sources but that depends on the blog. Please read WP:RS and the associated discussions; your broad statement that blogs are prohibited only in BLPs has no basis in any WP guideline or consensus. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're both saying the same thing here and you're both correct in that blogs in some cases are reliable sources. We're not dealing with a biography here, so that part isn't relevantHeartSWild (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Cartersfriendly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing Admin Discussion seems to have attracted a number of WP:SPAs. Of course their contributions are just as important as any other editor, although they may not be as familiar with such policies as WP:SPS or WP:RS, or even WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Lionel (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You even had me believing that blogs were prohibited as refs until another user posted otherwise and I went back and reread the guidance. cartersfriendly is right-the blogs used here fit the criteria as reliable sources. they are all of high quality, written by writers or editors highly respected in their field (writing and short stories), and they are only about those topics (writing, stories). case closed. did you actually read them before deleting them? show me what line they violate in wikipedia's reliable source guidance. i'm glad one of the users who previously voted to delete actually went through and read the refs (now removed by you) and concluded that they were reliable and that the magazine is notable. it's moot point anyway, the reviews you left weren't blogs, proving that this magazine has received the required media attention to make it notable.Flash Bang Man (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is rather ironic given the post below is by one of the blog writers and even he says his blog doesn't qualify. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did he say that every blog doesn't qualify? Flash Bang Man (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you indicated that they all qualify. They don't. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that. please show me where I did. Flash Bang Man (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second post above this - "the blogs used here fit the criteria as reliable sources. they are all of high quality, written by writers or editors highly respected in their field (writing and short stories), and they are only about those topics (writing, stories). case closed." (emphasis added) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that all of the blogs used here are reliable sources is not the same thing as saying that all blogs are. Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. This is beginning to remind me of the current debate about the Fox News donation to the Republicans and their moving target as to why they don't consider it newsworthy. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not semantics. Me saying that the blogs used here meet reliable source standards is NOT the same thing as saying that ALL blogs ever written do. End of story.Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and please don't compare me to republicans or fox news. Flash Bang Man (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the author of one of the blogs referenced as having reviewed the second issue. My blog is not notable. Publicola isn't exactly a blog, however. They are a news org that uses wordpress as their publishing platform. They do original reporting, mostly on Seattle and Washington state politics, but occasionally on cultural stuff like Birkensnake. Maybe in a couple more years Birkensnake will improve their profile (they do excellent work), but they aren't there yet. A couple of reviews, even on places like HTMLGiant aren't much in the way of notability. TheKingRat (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI've never posted my opinion on here, but what the heck. The whole crux of this debate comes down to the sources of this entry being blogs, thus making them unreliable sources, thus making this entry not notable. This not correct. According to WP:IRS, blogs can be considered reliable sources if they meet certain wickets. NOTE: I don't see any blogs currently being used as sources for this entry. But since it seems to be such an issue of contention if you would like to use a blog as a source, it would be best to put the link on the talk page and discuss why it would or why it wouldn't be a reliable source. Some blogs are, some blogs aren't. I hope that helps.HeartSWild (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe entry is notable based on the sources currently used. It looks like some additional reliable sources may have been removed in error. There is confusion of both sides of this discussion on what a reliable source is. I encourage everyone to check out: WP:SPS.HeartSWild (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your encouragement. I assure you, though, that after 47,000 edits on Wikipedia I have a reasonably good idea of what a reliable source is, and I am happy that it took you less than a dozen edits to learn this. Let me assure you of something else: there is very little confusion, on the side of the nay-sayers, current and former, of what a reliable source is. Happy editing; I hope you stick around after this AfD is over. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been on wikipedia for a while, just never created an account. Thank you for the warm welcome!HeartSWild (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• References Duotrope is a quote from (apparently) the publishers of Birkensnake. "BIG OTHER is an online forum of iconoclasts and upstarts". (Forums are not usually considered reliable.) Publicola looks reasonable. Getting there, a bit at least. Micro Award is notability for a story. Note to whoever tagged the statement about the magazine having little media note for its first issue: that's almost impossible to reference, but is a sign of honesty. The 'more' subsequent is potentially capable of referencing, and needs to be referenced reliable (by Wikipedia's standards, please - it's our ball and our rules). Peridon (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed for most of your points. At the end of the day, I think this is a notable entry. Part of this articles for deletion process is to improve articles that are notable. I think we did that here.HeartSWild (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. I would like to say keep. Just a bit more... Peridon (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So where are we?

1. duotrope NOT a source for notability as it's a primary source
2. publicola OK
3. bigother NOT RS: it's a forum
4. microaward NOT a source for notability as no significant coverage about Birk.
5. official website NOT a source for notability as it's a primary source

Having one source for notability fails WP:N as mutiple sources are required. Lionel (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently see 3 reviews/references being used that are reliable sources per WP:SPS. I am not counting micro award or the official website as they are there only as sources of information, not notability.HeartSWild (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art + Culture, Big Other-not an internet message board/forum-and PubliCola are all valid references per wikipedia's standards. Flash Bang Man (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Clock, mentioned above by the editor, also looks to be a reliable subscription-based publication. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Doesn't it state on Big Others About page: "BIG OTHER is an online forum"? (BTW Peridon already pointed this out.) This isn't exactly open to debate when the source describes itself thus. NEW DEVELOPMENT on Art+Culture - see below. Lionel (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may describe itself as an online forum, but if you had actually taken the time to read it you would have noticed that it isn't an "online forum" in the sense that most people use it. It isn't a forum/message board where users make posts or discuss topics. Its an online forum in the sense that they have about 20 or so authors that write stories/articles for the website. Not fully checking out a source when you dont like it seems to be a common theme with you. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Black Clock is an interview of the editor. That is not independent and thus the source cannot be used for notability. Lionel (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now interviews by independent sources are no longer valid? What other rules do you want to make up in this discussion? Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we tell Diane Sawyer?Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Independent reviews look legit and the award to Michael Stewart is significant. Bryanskunk (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• — Bryanskunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT NEW DEVELOPMENT... After reading Art+Culture again I noticed this: "Last week, Brian Conn and Joanna Ruocco, editors of Birkensnake, contributed two Guest Curator posts ... to Art+Culture." Because A+C is publishing Conn & Ruocco's contributions, it casts doubt on A+Cs objectivity and independence. Is this review quid pro quo? Afterall, the review of Birk. comes only a week after Conn & Ruocco contributed. Because of this potential conflict of interest A+C cannot be considered as a source for notability. That means there is only 1 source for Birk., thus it fails notability and per policy should be deleted. Lionel (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone counting, that actually leaves 3 reliable sources. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. Does this from A+C seem a little promotional? "The print editions of Birkensnake are four dollars each in the United States and Canada and six dollars each in every other part of the world; it makes a lot of sense to buy a print edition of Birkensnake (ital. mine)." Buy is a hyperlink to an order form. Kinda pushy? Especially since the magazine is free online. Lionel (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now he wants to discuss whether or not its a good buy. Flash Bang Man (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Despite trying, I can't quite see sufficient, meaningful sources. No point getting into a debate about it, I'm just not quite convinced. Still, I hope someone userfies this and makes a decent article in their space, ready for the NYT mention that would get it over the hill. And good luck to the closing admin. Bigger digger (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Digger, you are exactly right, in all ways. Good luck to the closing admin, seeing through all these SPAs, personal attacks, and wikilawyering. If it has to be userfied, I'll gladly take it. I know the editor! ;) Drmies (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the criteria then we need to delete around 90% of wikipedia. Flash Bang Man (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Apology I apologize for anything rude I said here or for offending aynone. But when your first accused of creating an wikipedia article for profit and then compared to Fox News and Republicans its easy to lose your temper. i hope you can see where i'm coming from. Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no one appreciates my edits and I just piss everyone off I'm going to retire from wikipedia. it was nice meeting all of you. all the best! Flash Bang Man (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • im sorry to see you go. thanks for creating the articleCartersfriendly (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (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.