The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.
It may contain one or more characters which cannot be used in titles.
- View log • ) – (
- (Find sources: )
Article created by someone who admits being editor of the site. Only sources added at the time of a poorly-attended AFD several years back are extremely weak and fall far short of establishing enough notability for a Wikipedia article. CNN article is for overal topic of flash fiction and not the site, this site is barely mentioned at all. It is not enough to merely be mentioned in passing in a reliable source, the specific topic of the article must have nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this web site does not. Only other source is a not particularly good ranking on a best of poll on another entirely nonnotable website. If this is the best they have, they clearly fall way short of even being mentioned on Wikipedia at all, let alone having an article devoted to them. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm having some trouble finding enough RS to justify this article. I removed the reference to Critters.org (as the website doesn't appear to be a RS) and found a PC Magazine source, but two sources do not exactly justify an article. There's a ton of trivial mentions such as the CNN link currently in the article, but not much that actually focuses on the website. Maybe this could be mentioned in the flash fiction article and potentially used as a redirect?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was unable to find anything except for this link , which is really so brief that it'd only be considered trivial at most. I'm going to try to look into seeing if a section about flash fiction's online presence can be written and added to the flash fiction article, with this website being mentioned there. FF does seem to have a good online presence and this website does seem to be popular in its niche, but there's just not enough sources to merit an article to itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect to Flash_fiction#Internet_presence. There's not enough here to justify an article for the zine alone, but it could serve as a redirect to the Internet section of the flash fiction article. That section still needs to be worked on and the flash fiction article as a whole needs work, but the most important part of the redirect situation is that flash fiction is notable and while FFO is a visible example of the online presence of flash fiction, there's not enough RS to give it its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect to Flash_fiction#Internet_presence. Sometimes a couple of sources can be all that it takes for a well-sourced small article, but unfortunately these sources are not really about the website but instead about flash fiction in general. I really have to agree with Tokyogirl79 on this one; I tried searching through Google Books and only came up with sources where authors had listed that they had published work through the website. Unfortunately, I believe this has to be redirected. Nomader (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
| This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Flash Fiction Online (2nd nomination), that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.