Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LitMinds

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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LitMinds

A run-of-the-mill website. I do not see where the notability is with this one. Per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this opportunity to further discuss the issue. Your issue with the LitMinds entry seems to be around notability. Allow us to address that.

It can be difficult to judge an organization by simply looking at it’s web-site. And you are right that on a cursory glance, LitMinds web-site won’t appear to be notable. In fact, we don’t claim to have a sophisticated web-site with fancy features. LitMinds does claim to be a notable organization which is engaged in several notable activities. Among them – 1) Telling the stories of literary innovators who are doing unique, interesting, and pioneering work to promote reading and literature. We do this through our acclaimed Literary Innovators Interviews which can be found on our blog. www.litminds.org/blog/ 2) Work with schools and colleges to help young readers discover books and the art of conversation through social networking. 3) Perform the above activities without any commercial motivations (ala advertisements, subscriptions fees, affiliate kick-backs). In summary, we think LitMinds is a notable mission-driven organization with fairly unique goals and focus.

Next, let us address the issue of “coverage” i.e. who else thinks we are doing anything notable? Here is some press we have received from the American Booksellers Association, San Francisco Business Journal, Publisher’s Weekly, New York Review of Books, and San Jose State University http://news.bookweb.org/features/5520.html http://washington.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/20/story5.html?jst=s_cn_hl http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6449438.html http://nyrb.typepad.com/classics/2007/06/index.html http://sanjose.metblogs.com/archives/2007/07/litmindsorg_teams_with_sjsu.phtml

Also, here is some discussions of LitMinds in the blogosphere: http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2007/03/litminds_interv.html http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2007/03/litminds-interview.html http://caribousmom.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/16/2884137.html http://www.thebookbeat.com/backroom/index.php

Last, after reading Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, we have an observation we would like to share. The guidelines say “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” In our humble opinion, strict application of this guideline poses significant risk of turning Wikipedia into a site that only summarizes what the mass media is reporting on. Let’s take a couple of examples from our world – the world of literature. The mass media has been obsessing about stories of independent bookstores closing around the country. There has been a real lack of coverage in the mass media about stories where independent bookstores are surviving and thriving while chain stores in the same neighborhoods are retrenching. Similarly, the mass media continues to report about the apparent decline of reading in the American society, and continues to largely ignore the efforts of pioneers who are helping to create generations of new readers. LitMinds was started to correct this information imbalance. So, by definition we are talking about things that don’t get covered by others! Fortunately, Wikepdia notability guidelines also state – “However, there is still a lot of debate on notability, as for obvious reasons, not every person, business, or street can be considered notable, so on such topics, the line has to be further drawn.” We hope in addition to making a case for LitMinds notability, this conversation will also help re-assess the notability guidelines themselves.

- Praveen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmadan (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Blogs aren't really acceptable as sources; and of the five "press" sources listed above, the last two are message-board posts and also not acceptable as sources. The three remaining references establish the site as a new venture that may someday be notable under the WP guidelines, but I don't think it's there yet. Deor (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB website less than a year old and with no notability in particular. Alexa rank is around [5 million], even lower than my own personal site. WP is not a guide to every website that ever existed. Looks like there's some WP:SPAM/WP:COI issues in play here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB for the sourcing issues IDed by Deor TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and does have a WP:COI--Pmedema (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Booksmith, the brick-and-mortar store owned by the same people. I think the ABA Bookweb, Bizjournals, and PW discussions are sufficient sourcing to add to that article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 28 February 2008 (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.