Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nifty erotic stories archive

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. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty erotic stories archive

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

Unnotable web content. All "sources" are the web site itself, no independent coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting deletion: Site is referred to on http://asstr.org (see http://assm.asstr.org/), http://bestofnifty.org/, etc. There are 351 links on the Web to this site, according to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nifty.org The site has from 10,000 to 34000 page views per day, according to http://www.sitesview.net/d/www.nifty.org There are 141 references to the site listed on Google Books (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Nifty+erotic+stories+archive%22&gws_rd=ssl). Google Scholar has 14 references to "nifty.org" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nifty.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10). There are 418 results for "Nifty Erotic Stories Archive" on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nifty+erotic+stories+archive&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10)

The site is also mentioned in Steven F. Kruger, "Gay Internet Medievalism: Erotic Story Archives, the Middle Ages, and Contemporary Gay Identity", American Literary History, Volume 26, No. 3, http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/29/alh.ajq064.extract, according to http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Nifty+erotic+stories+archive%22.

The following quotation is from www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Slash-fiction

1992: The Nifty Erotic Stories Archive, or Nifty for short, is established. The 'Gay Male - Celebrity' sub-section of the archive proves to be a breeding ground for many different types of slash fiction, particularly RPS and boyband fiction. It is one of the largest collections of RPS in existence, with more than 1,500 boyband stories alone, some of which were several megabytes of plain-text in length.

(above unsigned comments by Deisenbe)

Comment: The thing is, many of those links are not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. The peer review journal is a good example of what can be considered a reliable source, and reliable sources are generally considered to be stuff such as newspaper articles, coverage in peer reviewed journal entries, lengthy mentions in books (published through RS publishers) and so on. Also, the problem with the quote from statemaster.com is twofold: first, it is a mirror of Wikipedia. Secondly, it's a reference to material that is no longer on the Wikipedia entry as far as I can see. Even if this was material independently added by statemaster.com, that site is not considered to be a reliable source. I am finding some coverage and I'll see what I can do, but so far the coverage you have listed here would not be considered reliable or would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, page rankings on Alexa does not give notability per WP:ITSPOPULAR. It may make it more likely that a site will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was almost a weak keep, but this is somewhat extensively mentioned in various academic texts as fairly notable and an early example of its type. If not for the academic sources, I'd probably have voted otherwise, but there's just enough here to where it squeaks by. I'm going to continue to try finding sources, as I still have a few word combinations that I'd like to try out- there does seem to be more coverage out there (as some sources quote other sources that mention the site), but considering that the site is very often referred to as just "Nifty", this makes searching for reliable sources understandably difficult. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note User:Deisenbe, if you've written about the site and had it published in a reliable source (academic text, PR journal, news website, that sort of thing), we could use that as a reliable source as well. Not that I'm telling you to go out and publish an article about the website and submit it to a website we consider reliable, such as say... Queerty, but if you do happen to have anything like that we could use it. If your userpage is accurate (I have to put that disclaimer since we've had people claim various things in the past), then you're in a unique position where something you've written would be very, very likely to be usable depending on where it was published and if you're also somewhat more likely to have something published if you were to write up an article and submit it to one of the various locations that we would consider usable. (Although if you did do that, I'd recommend that you not mention that you wrote it just to save the Wikipedia article, FYI.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not published anything that refers to this site.deisenbe (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A shame then- the site's background is actually sort of interesting, as sites like this rarely get non-profit status. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly notable, Keep — HipLibrarianship ^talk 00:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as shown above. BMIComp

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.