Talk:The Library of Babel (website)

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adding redirect in Library of Babel

Once this draft is done, I'd like to put one of the "for x go to x" type things at the top, and a link in the "Influence on later writers" section as well. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns

I am concerned that this topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the notability criteria that mentions "if it presents a new idea/theory." Also, it looks like it's largely copying, or should I say implementing, ideas from the short story that it is named after. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find that criteria, and can you explain what you mean by that second part? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the 2nd part, I mean, the web site is basically "making real" the library described in the book. By the way, the relevant notability guidelines for web content are Wikipedia:Notability (web) and, as with all topics, Wikipedia:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is what I was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_proffesionals but I'm not sure if it applies, and that is the point of the website, to replicate the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:49, 22 November 2020‎ (talk • contribs) SnazzyInfinity (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative proffesionals refers to people, not web sites. If you are writing about Jonathan Basile then the page should be moved to Draft:Jonathan Basile and rewritten so the focus is on him, not the web site.

Even so, all but one of the criteria for creative professionals requires that the created work be significant. I'm not seeing evidence that the web site qualifies as a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Since it was largely cribbed from the short story, the case for new-ness is also weakened. Note that "significance" is measured in the impact on the world, not on how unique or creative or difficult to make it was. While it is obvious a significant amount of effort and creativity went into this web site, that does not make the web site itself significant for the purposes of this section of Wikipedia:Notability (people).

I also see no evidence that he qualifies under criteria 1, being widely cited by peers or successors.

I don't see any other criteria in which the web site or the person would qualify for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The website itself is obviously notable, both under WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There is a ton of specific and detailed news coverage concentrated on the website itself, e.g. Guardian[1], Slate[2], Smithonian[3], Quartz[4], LA Times[5], Popular Science[6], etc. If some of these sources are added to the draft, I'll be happy to move the draft to mainspace myself. If somebody wants to AfD the article after that, they are certainly welcome, but I guarantee that it'll be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% convinced it would pass AFD but I won't be nominating it in light of the list above and comments at WP:Teahouse#Help with draft (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an argument for merge, I think it would survive. "No WP:RS coverage"/"Only passing mentions" objections doesn't fit. I prefer 4-5 instead of WP:THREE, but I have that here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYN

If you can get the prose portion up to 1500 words within 7 days of "going live," it will be eligible for consideration for a Did You Know? appearance on the Main Page.

This might be incentive to NOT move it to the main encyclopedia until it is "DYN-ready." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK can certainly be a learning experience, this [7] was my first. My third took less than a week. But it is fun to note "Cool, my article had 8 000 pageviews in one day." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]