Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagga Magazine


 * 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Dagga Magazine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am unsure why this article is nominated for deletion? Could you please clarify your rational?--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is insuficciently notable, hence it was deleted earlier "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". There's a conflict of interest to boot, since the editor apparently wrote this article. I get the impression the only motivation of the author of the article is to publicize and/or promote the magazine (WP:PROMO). HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for giving the impression of promoting the publication, that is not my intention for creating this article. I still do not comprehend why the publication may not have credible indication of importance. Could you please elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion or what forms the basis for you to believe that this article has no credible indication of importance? PS. There is conflict of interest. I am part of this organization. I will review the COI documentation. Please get back to me on credible indication of importance.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, promoting the publication or to boost web-presence. Please see the publication's most notable mention where the Durango Herald, an international & independent source, quotes the Dagga Magazine. The guidelines of Wikipedia do not set 'n minimum number of sources, although I have included other mentions, notability requires that others are writing about the publication and this has been proven true, even though these mention are not in depth reviews of the publication. I find it hard to accept that some of the voters, in nomination for deletion, purely rely on Google Search to disprove notability. Although Google searches do help, I do not believe it should be the only criteria votes are based upon. There are many other sources that write about the magazine that are not online searchable. This includes Twitter and Facebook. Where the magazine receives the most notice / mentions. Please do understand also that local mainstream news sources do not reference or mention the magazine because of the illegality of dagga (cannabis) in South Africa. Hence why most local sources are subject related (part of the cannabis culture) but still independent organizations. Thank you again for engaging with me directly on this matter.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability in terms of audience is extremely important in this regard. This magazine was quoted in an American newspaper:"The event, according to Dagga Magazine, a marijuana culture blog, was dubbed “one of the most historic moments in 4:20 history.” (International: America)Reference,Thus establishing the magazine's presence on an international scale. 420sa writes about Dagga Magazine (Local, South Africa) Reference. Dagga Couple writes about Dagga Magazine (Local, South Africa: references pending). Dagga Party writes about Dagga Magazine (Local, South Africa: reference). Cannabis Culture (Magazine) mentions Dagga Magazine "The above chart, courtesy of David J. Nutt at Dagga magazine, illustrates the harm trends" (International: Canada)Reference
 * --MickeyDangerez (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of local audience the magazine received 49288 article views which attracted 1371 comments on 63 approved articles on the MyNews24 platform.reference
 * -- MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: The content of this article is commendably frank about their Indiegogo campaign. However, neither that nor the primary sources in the article, nor the several mentions listed above provide the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is required for WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:PRODUCT or WP:NWEB and my own searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment, please note the inclusion of the closed Indiegogo campaign is entered as part of the history of this publication. Please take note that dagga is still illegal in South Africa and just like you won't find local coverage of apartheid heroes or organization fighting apartheid during apartheid mainstream coverage is limited. I don't believe notability should only rely on Google searches.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above, "notability requires that others are writing about the publication and this has been proven true" also note that there is no minimum number of sources required, reasoning also in comment above, please engage in the discussion section above. --MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that the Durango Herald reference does not meet any of the listed reasons for exclusion as per WP:CORPDEPTH.-- MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject article does not inherit notability from a passing mention in a Durango Herald article about another matter. To say "The event, according to Dagga Magazine, a marijuana culture blog..." is not substantial coverage about the blog. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It may not be an in-depth discussion of the publication but establishes that the magazine has an international audience and in conjunction with other sources makes it notable.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:, I have restoring the nominator's rationale to the top of this discussion, where it belongs. Please do not relocate or refactor others' contributions here. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, I was just trying to organize this page as it is included elsewhere on wikipedia, see notices, hence why I created category headings to keep the page organized.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean up the layout of this AfD to make it readable by removing unnecessary templates and subsections, etc. If anything got put in the wrong place or in the wrong order, it wasn't intentional. @MickeyDangerez: Please don't tweak the formating anymore. This is not an article and does not need to be formatted as such with subsections, etc. and citations as references. Keep the formating as simple as possible to make it easier for others (particularly the closing admin) to follow as explained in WP:AFDEQ and WP:AFDFORMAT. If you want to list sources or get into indepth discusisons, feel free to use Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dagga Magazine or better yet make the improvements directly to the article itself and simply post a note here in the AfD as to what you did. Also, in general please follow WP:TPG when posting on community discussions such as these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the previous formatting was highly readable especially where this page is re-displayed in other categories. I have no clue what is going on on the current formatting. references for notability are obscured and commentary and voting is now intertwined.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * AfDs are generally meant to be read from top to bottom. There's a certain flow to an AfD discussion, and posts are in most cases read in chronological order. !Votes and recommendations, etc. are marked with bullet points and indicated in bold. I'm not sure what other categories you're referring to, but anything relevant to this AfD is best discussed here so that everything stays in one place. Detailed discussion can be posted on this AfD's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep not sure if my nomination means anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources as extant don't amount to the level of coverage required to establish notability. The fact that the magazine is about something which is illegal in its country of publication is neither here nor there when the sources are only passing mentions. I'm also concerned to some extent about the assorted format changes made to this AfD, although they may simply be good-faith efforts by someone "new to the game". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your commentary, the formating was done in good faith, this is my second encounter with a nomination for deletion, however my first on the english wiki. The formatting changes were made for clarity (was much clearer format for myself to grasp in totality. I realize now that it may have been strange to those who work with this on a daily basis. I am regrettably sorry for that but it is teething problems that come to light from new & inexperienced wikipedians. Regarding coverage what would you suggest is a sufficient level of coverage to qualify? For example some animal articles have no coverage except for a single source from the publishing of the finding. Certainly all articles on Wikipedia should have some general equality when it comes to applying the general notabilty guidelines?--MickeyDangerez (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Duly noted regarding the format changes. As far as coverage is concerned, I'll refer here to WP:GNG, which I'm sure has been cited before in this discussion somewhere. Multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable, third-party sources is always the standard, which is currently not what we're seeing here. To expand on the other-stuff-exists argument (Fylbecatulous is correct that the existence of other articles in parlous states isn't an argument in favour of keeping another article in a similar state - and that's true whether the articles in question are of magazines, animals or Foreign Ministers of Nauru), the publication in a scientific journal that a new species has been discovered is an order of magnitude more significant than a passing mention of this magazine in a more general discussion about drug laws around the world. I might also pick up on the point regarding advertising/promotion and indicate that it's not just a case of "are you trying to make money out of this?" If the subject of the article is a relatively minor publication (and, no offence, but it looks that way at the moment), a Wikipedia article can easily be seen as promoting that publication and/or the agenda of that publication. The fact that there's no link saying "click here to subscribe" doesn't prevent it from being promotional in aspect. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nothing in the article or the existing sources is newsworthy or notable except to promote the magazine or the push for legalisation for dagga. It is up to the article creator to provide the needed relaible sources to support their claims made in the text or in arguments in this discussion. I agree (since I work with feline (cats) articles, some are poorly sourced). But this is invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is usually ignored in deletion discussions. Besides, this specific argument is comparing 'apples to oranges'. An equal argument would need to provide examples of poorly sourced magazines articles in a plea to keep. Fylbecatulous talk 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The comparison was only made in an attempt to ascertain what amount of references is required to make it notable. Thus far nobody opposed the fact that the magazine enjoys an international audience adding credibility to notability. Thus I ask again for example what would make it notable otherwise. The main principles of the notability guide ask does the subject receive notice and to what geographical extent does the notice reach. In this case the local South African magazine is recognized internationally even though it has not received in depth coverage, the audience and the reliable independent sources already added must be considered. For it to be a advertisement something must be sold for monetary gain or purposely written for promoting rather than record keeping of notable events and organizations. My edits show the later and that is my only intentions on Wikipedia. None of the content suggest pushing for dagga legalization agenda. Those allegations are unfounded. Have a great evening. --MickeyDangerez (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The main principles of the notability guide with rational for notability of the magazine:
 * Significant coverage more than a mention: The magazine was quoted by a reliable (accredited), independent(non affiliated) source. A clear distinction should be considered between a trivial mention and quote. As well as have been the subject of various local non affiliated pro-cannabis organizations.
 * Reliable: The referenced sources are reliable, the most notable a newspaper and high profile pro-cannabis organizations.
 * Sources: Sources are secondary and not all of them are verifiable with a google search engine. Multiple references.
 * Independent: None of the sources are or have been affiliated with the magazine.
 * Article content does not determine notability: Some of the rationales given for nominations have been based on the content of the article rather than the notability of the magazine.


 * Newly rediscovered reliable & independent source: the Anti-Drug Alliance of South Africa publicly responded to an article about employee dagga rights in which they created a lengthy article focusing on the subject in terms of the notability guide. While I am looking for the original source. A mirror is available on

Therefore I conclude my plea to keep this article. Should the conclusion be to delete the article I ask that it be merged with Daggafari in the section that chronologically detail the evolution of the dagga culture of South Africa.

I thank all participants for investing their personal time on this matter. Have a great day/evening--MickeyDangerez (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can see no evidence of notability in the article. Deb (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your participation, please take note article content does not determine notability. WP:ARTN & WP:CONTN--MickeyDangerez (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SInce you are referring to WP:CONTN, the guideline; where is your source material? That is the lacking evidence is referring to. Please follow on and take note of: WP:NRVE (same guideline), which states: " Notability requires verifiable evidence".  You can't push forward one assertion without having the other.  Fylbecatulous talk 15:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Mickey, it's not a good idea to add comments after everyone else's input. We are already aware that you disagree, and we don't need to be "corrected" or argued with. Deb (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete A WP:BEFORE search indicates a dearth of in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources, with such marginal mentions in news outlets  and nothing at all in the literature . Fails WP:SIGCOV and concomitantly WP:GNG. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Please forgive my noobiness.
 * -Fylbecatulous in one reply you mention that I haven't included any references but I have included the ones that are searchable online.


 * -My bad Deb (talk I didn't know one is not allowed to rebut statements in-line, however the AfD guidelines does ask that the outcome be determined by policy-based arguments. Hence why the points I have made thus far is very important to reach a logical conclusion based on the guidelines and not purely on statistics of a Google search.


 * -Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi what would be the threshold & ratio it would take to meet the in-depth & persistent coverage requirement for notability. Regarding the Durango Herald reference: My argument is that quoting the words of another person cannot be consider a trivial mention. The reason is that they aren't merely referencing the magazine's name but they are actually talking about a statement that was made by the publication. The Three Blind Mice example shows that a trivial mention is when the name of the subject is merely mentioned. Although a quotation is not in-depth coverage it is still not a trivial mention as there is a powerful message behind any quotation. Also note that this quote reference is not the only reference that has been given. The other very important reference is the one in which the Anti-Drug Alliance of South Africa created a lengthy document about an article the publication wrote about employee dagga rights. Reference also above.


 * If anyone's statements in nomination for deletion can be rebutted with policy based arguments I have an obligation do so and therefore it is not an indication of trying to prove my disagreement. Please accept that everything I do on Wikipedia is in good faith. If I was convinced by what others have said that the publication has zero notability, and if I had the privileges would delete the page myself. One <3 Love,--MickeyDangerez (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have found the source. The Anti-Drug Alliance of South Africa created and distributed a pdf document. I cannot seem to find a copy online. I have contacted them to furnish me with a link. Please find the following mirror to a copy of the original PDF document as created by the organization. mirror (pdf) mirror (txt)-- Mickey  ☠  Dangerez  22:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion all this collapsing of discussions is making this Afd more not less difficult to read. Could I ask editors to please stop doing this? This Afd is not especially long. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a comment upon the length of the discussion, but rather the fact that it was less a discussion and more an exercise in bludgeoning. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  07:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Notability: A comment by Myrtle of the Dagga Couple and Fields of Green for All on  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nothing notable about this "magazine" (for want of a better word) that failed in its attempt to go into print. The fact that it failed in its Indigo campaign speaks volumes on the notability claims made by its only contributor and editor pushing for the keep here.  Rob van  vee  10:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: ^ Really? The notability of a subject has been determined by the failure of an Indiegogo campaign held at the subject's birth. Clearly Rob you some vendetta against my person or against the subject. -- Mickey  ☠  Dangerez  11:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , previously in this AfD it was suggested that you refrain from disputing every expression of opinion contrary to your own in this discussion. You should also refrain from personal allegations against participants: WP:AGF. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the guidelines for nomination of deletion clearly state that the outcome is based on logical policy based discussion. Therefor let me rephrase my previous statement. The failure or success of an Indiegogo campaign does not determine whether a subject is notable, therefore the comment by Rob is based on a personal attack rather than that of a policy based discussion. I was a little but frustrated but none of my actions or opinions are intent of personal allegations. The truth however is that Rob has personal connections to FOGFA and the Dagga Magazine has recently published incriminating evidence of this organization hence why I called Rob out on his reasoning for nomination that is based on personal opinion rather than Wikipedia Guidelines, I unconditionally retract all statements that infer personal allegation and humbly apologize for any actions that may be deemed as such. Please seeTalk:Dagga Couple for Rob's undeclared COI. Regards-- Mickey  ☠  Dangerez  13:15, 14 September 2017 (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.