Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinywords


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tinywords

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no reason to believe that this online publication is notable by our standards. The article attempts notability via namedropping of various kinds, first with a list of people whose work they have published, but that doesn't automatically make the medium notable (and, let's face it, they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff); and second, with some resume-dropping on behalf of the editors (note that the last two "references" function that way. But without any secondary coverage at all there is no ground for accepting the subject's notability. Note also that I have removed a chunk of "information" that was really quite promotional, including a sizeable linkfarm. Oh, and there's an obvious COI in the history. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment briefly reviews Tinywords.  Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That link appears to be behind a paywall. It doesn't look very promising, as the abstract indicates that it is a review of a book by Lee Gurga. Can you provide some more info?--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only what I could see through Google Scholar: "Haiku on tinywords are generally good, although they aren't always up to the standards of Gurga or of the Anthology." I don't have on-line institutional access to that journal and can't be bothered to look for a printed copy; the topic is far outside my interest area. Try WP:WRE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [ec] I never liked the business model Taylor & Francis subscribe to. JSTOR does not have that article available; I will try some other avenues later today. Thanks for the hint. Bagworm, even if it's just a book review it might help, since it proves that the website is discussed in a published book. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I obtained a copy of this paper from the editor of that journal. Here is the relevant section of the review (apologies if I'm not formatting properly). I can post a PDF or screenshot if that would help. --Dtweney (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Beyond the Poet’s Guide, there are numerous other useful resources for delving
 * into the world of haiku. For those wishing to further explore the genre, The Haiku
 * Anthology (van den Heuvel, 1999) now in a 3rd expanded edition, provides a
 * excellent overview of some of the better haiku being written today. ...
 * On the World Wide Web there are too many relevant websites to mention even a
 * goodly percentage of them. However, for a daily shot of haiku, one may turn to
 * www.tinywords.com. The site features a poem of the day, which one may read at the
 * site or receive via email by signing up for the free service. Haiku on tinywords are
 * generally good, although they aren’t always up to the standards of Gurga or of the
 * Anthology.
 * Among periodicals, Modern Haiku, publishes the most consistently high quality
 * haiku and is a place to keep up with haiku developments through its many reviews
 * and articles. The magazine also publishes guidelines for contests for adults and teens.
 * For a highly contemporary style of haiku with an edge, a good source is Raw Nervz
 * out of Canada. Haiku in Raw Nervz are as likely to be about sex or the urban
 * nightlife as they are about quiet contemplation in nature. Many haiku poets publish
 * in both magazines, indicating that while Raw Nervz is ‘‘out there’’ in terms of
 * attitude, it’s still well respected in the haiku community.
 * in both magazines, indicating that while Raw Nervz is ‘‘out there’’ in terms of
 * attitude, it’s still well respected in the haiku community.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also an article in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which mentions it, for whatever that's worth. Make that two, actually. There's also a very Brief mention in The National (Abu Dhabi) . (That's all Google News finds for "tinywords -Wired.com"; if you don't filter out the latter you'll get a lot of articles by Tweney, who is a columnist at Wired as well; his Wired byline blurb mentions his poetry site practically every time.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, there's one short paragraph in College & Research Libraries News . Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Haiku is a serious genre of poetry, and this site contains beautifully artistic examples of the form." Seems like a strong statement of notability to me. --19:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Bottle Rockets (magazine) in a separate discussion because presently it's even more poorly sourced than this one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm glad there's actually discussion happening on this topic, rather than summary deletions, as has happened in the past. I have contributed edits to the tinywords entry in the past because I know more about the subject than most. However, I'm refraining from editing the article at this point because of conflicts of interest. I will say this: I believe tinywords is significant because it is a long-standing publication of haiku and short verse, it reaches a larger audience than many comparable journals (eg Frogpond and Modern Haiku), and is a pioneer in digital literary journal publishing. However, over the years various Wikipedia editors have contested the legitimacy of the tinywords entry, deleting the main entry, as well as expunging any mention of it in other pages. There seems to be something vindictive about these deletions, and some of them seem to be part of an edit war between the user "Bagworm" and other individuals. But as I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, and I have an obvious conflict of interest in any case, there is little I can do about it. I am stumped about how to proceed. For instance, on the circulation figures -- currently over 3,000 subscribers -- I have no way of demonstrating the factual nature of that figure other than to point to the ongoing documentation of it that I've posted on the tinywords site for years. As for notability: There are references to tinywords on the web, in online forums, and in print journals, often links from people whose work have been published there, or complaints from people whose work was rejected. It clearly exists. It is clearly a literary journal with a wide readership and a large body of contributors, many of whom are significant in the haiku world in their own right. I'm not sure what else I can do but state my case, ask others to weigh in, and let Wikipedia take its course. Dtweney (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Thanks for your input, DT. Your candidness is appreciated. (Please take a look at Notability to get an idea of what's actually needed.) Of the further 4 references supplied by SNUHRN, the first is behind a paywall, and the others don't really come near being "significant coverage". Unless something substantially stronger comes up, logic dictates deletion of the article. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have assumed above that people can check out the sources already included in the article, so I did not mention those, which mainly consist of a short story in Silicon Valley Business Journal and a catalog-like entry in a publication by Haiku Society of America. The other refs looks like self-published blogs. I'm not familiar with this area so I won't !vote one way or the other if this is enough or not for WP:N. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this really how you spend your free time? It's a cool site and deserves as much mention here as thousands of other less significant entities. Leave the damned entry as is and get a life, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.207.108 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Found this reference to tinywords in a Modern Haiku essay. I believe it speaks to the notability of tinywords. In addition, I'd just like to add that tinywords is unique in its delivery system inasmuch as the interactive feature. Comments range from a handful per day to hundreds, depending on the post. We publish haiku and other small poems. Essentially, the standard form of communication on social networking sites is short form. We are being asked to communicate using fewer and fewer words. Of course, there is a long tradition of short verse in this country as well as in Japan. tinywords is unique in its longevity (founded in 2000) and its scope. I find that too often people confuse short verse with light verse. One of our goals at tinywords is to encourage and support the thoughtful construction of poems, one word at a time. http://www.modernhaiku.org/essays/AmHaikuMovement2.html … #tinywords — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Newton (talk • contribs) — Peter Newton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Drmies wrote: "they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff". I don't think this comment is relevant. The length of a poem has no correlation with its significance. If it did, there'd be no entry for Matsuo Basho. --Dtweney (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies also said he removed a "sizeable linkfarm." In the process he's also deleted many details about tinywords that help explain its significance, such as references to the fact that tinywords publishes via SMS (one of the first literary journals to do so) and RSS (ditto), as well as its i-Mode and Avantgo versions. I'm not adding them back -- in fact I am not the person who put those links in there in the first place -- but the edit has the effect of making the entry look less significant. It seems to me that the argument about significance should take place here on this discussion page, not via edits to the article in question, shouldn't it? Or is that not how things are done on Wikipedia? --Dtweney (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability and lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A caution to the users above that posting walls of text and attacks ("get a life") is not the way to win an AFD debate and really isn't helping your cause at all. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, in fairness, that "wall of text" was posted in response to my request for further info regarding a reference that was hidden behind a paywall. The editor is relatively inexperienced and did apologise upfront for the formatting. Of course I agree with you about the "get a life" attack. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My admittedly big "wall of text" is an effort to put the citation in context. The point being: At least one academic paper thought tinywords significant enough to merit a mention -- the only online journal mentioned -- along with some significant print journals & books of haiku. As for the "get a life" attack, I agree; I have no idea who posted that. --Dtweney (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "there's an obvious COI in the history" according to Drmies. I assume that's referring to edits I've made several times over the years. I will point out that my edits have always been relatively minor. I was not the creator of this entry, nor have I been its primary editor over the 6 or 7 years it has existed. Therefore, the COI is irrelevant to the discussion of notability. If the COI is a problem, you can delete any of my contributions. But the entry's notability should be judged independent of those contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtweney (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More references: tinywords was recognized by Mashable in 2010 and is mentioned by New Jersey On-Line in an article about one of the site's editors.  --Dtweney (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * tinywords editor Peter Newton's biography at The Haiku Circle (a longstanding annual gathering, often featuring notable haiku poets ), where he is currently the Director, mentions his role with tinywords . Newton is also a staff member at the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference. --Dtweney (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that the initial reason given for deletion appears to suggest some contempt for the haiku form ("let's face it, they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff"). I'd hate to see a unique, long-lived and well-respected publication go off the grid by an act of ignorant caprice. - pauldavidmena  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldavidmena (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, STOP with the personal attacks. It's against policy here and will NOT get the article kept.  You may comment here (briefly, if possible) and express your disagreement if you wish but name-calling and insults ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, respectfully, Paul's comment is not a personal attack. He was pointing out that the person who started this page cited a point which indicates contempt for haiku and very short poems. Since the legitimacy of the haiku entry is not in question, it seems fair to point out that such comments are not only irrelevant, but may sway this discussion unfairly. Earlier, you complained about my citing of a source requested by another user. I think you need to allow the discussion to happen. --Dtweney (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are at least 9 independent sources, listed above, referring to tinywords' significance and notability, including two academic journals, several mainstream regional newspapers, and one major tech blog (Mashable). I have an obvious COI (I used to edit tinywords and still publish it) but I see nothing in Articles for deletion or Conflict of interest that prevents me from expressing a vote here as long as I'm aboveboard, which I have been in every edit and comment. Also, please note that the majority of my edits to this discussion and to the tinywords page have been to add links to independent sources. Dtweney (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article can definitely be improved, and as the discussion has shown, there are good sources out there to support the article. Merrilee (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious that the above is a meatpuppet. I'm not sure if it qualifies as "outing" to point out that someone with the same name as the above SPA either is or was an editor on tinywords and might know Mr. Tweney personally. The article he links to briefly mentions the website along with numerous others that don't seem to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, so it actually speaks to the non-notability of the subject if anything. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Going through all the references, it appears that almost all are blogs of uncertain reliability, homepages of involved persons, links to sites that don't even mention this publication (I have removed those), and one (1) article in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, which (even if it is a reliable source, which I find doubtful) is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: the website publisher just added several sources to the article. In my opinion, none of these in-passing mentions establish notability and I see no need to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion, but there are 10 independent sources listed on this discussion page here, none of which are blogs, and all of which mention tinywords. Dtweney (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Except perhaps for the Silicon Valley Business Journal piece, the other reliable sources ((1) ; (2) the paragraph in College & Research Libraries News, Volume 64) contain only a passing reference to the web site. The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG). --Edcolins (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As the person who originally redirected the article (note: despite the persistent accusations of several users, I did not -- and can not -- "unilaterally delete" the page) my opinion on this page should be obvious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't provide free advertising to poetry websites. Why is it that all of the "Wikipedia editors" who argue in favour of these kind of pages turn out to be people with a very close connection to the subject? I used to take AGF too far, and referred to these editors as "fans" but it's become pretty obvious that these websites don't have any "fans" who believe the websites deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Messieurs Tweney and Newton should leave this discussion, and if good-faith, non-COI Wikipedians decide at a later date that this article should exist then it can. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have conducted every single edit & comment to this discussion in good faith. I've always been aboveboard about my connection to tinywords and have made every effort to learn Wikipedia's rules and community standards. But it now seems clear that this discussion is motivated by something other than a dedication to facts. Despite the many sources named here, a group of editors seems bent on voting for deletion regardless of sourcing. I can't win, so I'm no longer going to make any effort to defend the article. Delete it if you will, I'm done trying to make a case for something so obvious. Dtweney (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2013 (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.