Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagger (zine)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Dagger (zine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "References only present in-passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason New references, remove ". However, the added references are just more in-passing mentions. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  17:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 *  Keep Delete. Not sure, the WP:GNG does give some latitude about references and these are written into the article from a non-promotional stance. Would be better to keep but add Refimprove section for this. Conclusion: Keep. Ricksanchez (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article creator has put in a lot of effort to find anything that mentions this zine. If no substantial sources have been found now, they probably don't exist. Adding a template doesn't change that much. And without in-depth sources, GNG is not met and we don't keep articles just because they are not promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat agree, but I think you are using a fairly heavy-handed interpretation of GNG here. And to your point, that, "we don't keep articles just because they are not promotional" that is certainly your viewpoint, but that is not a standard that is uniformly applied to WP (nor do I believe it should be). Sourcing within WP is much different in my view than sourcing in say a peer-reviewed published article, for example, because of the dynamics of the internet, what people feel is "important" and the way older "internet 1.0" sites have been handled (aka, papered over as if they never existed). This mix of zeitgeist and temporal dynamics makes GNG a much less objective standard than WP would like us to believe. Of course that is my viewpoint, and I am sure you disagree, but this is a nice discussion so thank you! Ricksanchez (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though I agree with what I wrote, you have convinced me otherwise. I think I will change my stance to: Delete.Ricksanchez (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I thought long and hard about this article. It's well written, so... I'm loathe to delete. But notability is not very strongly established. However, we have a pitchfork article explicitly calling out Dagger as one of the best zines and was similarly endorsed by Maximumrockandroll, soooo... to me that suggests Wikipedia needs information on it. I would support a merge to Tim Hinely, but that article doesn't exist. So it could be written, and Dagger merged there eventually, but in the meantime I can't see a reason to delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't be serious. The complete mention of Dagger in that pitchfork article is "One of the best, Tim Hinely’s Dagger, is still going strong". We can't really base an article on that. I agree that Tim Hinely appears to be notable. Several of the references in this article mention Dagger only when they talk about him ("Tim Hinely, who publishes Dagger, said..." or similar, followed by several paragraphs about Hinely). So yes, it would have been preferable if the effort that went into creating this article on a non-notable zine had been put into a bio of Hinely, with a mention of Dagger, to which this could then have been redirected. Until such a bio is created, however, we're stuck with this article on an obviously non-notable subject. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sadly there's just not enough for WP:GNG. The sources are thin, and their quality not great (with exceptions like Pitchfork, but there is just a mention). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hello, I am the writer of Dagger (zine). Dagger is a source of in-depth content, containing interviews, editorials, album reviews, live reviews and "Best Of" lists. Underground zines generally do not receive a lot of press coverage, since they are the press coverage. Dagger, in comparison with other zines that live unaffected on Wikipedia is well sourced. Second, Dagger is possibly the oldest continuous music zine still printed. At nearly thirty-two years old, Tim Hinely has contributed substantially to independent music journalism; he is an expert in the field, and well respected by contemporaries. Zines require a lot of effort to publish. Typing, printing, copying, folding and stapling; artist interviews, especially pre-internet, is about as difficult and time consuming as a senior project or thesis, multiple times a year. As an art form or academic effort, Dagger is prolific. Third, RandyKitty's first edit was to adjust formatting; with presumably no issue of notability. Calling the style I used (which is used in featured articles) "ugly," they reverted their edit, and put a tag asking for references. After adding references, I removed the tag according to its directions. Then, a deletion tag was put up. This incremental process is conflicting. I check their edits to see what kind of style and sourcing they preferred. I come upon Globalizations. Comparing the two articles (Dagger and Globalizations) I find RandyKitty's preference conflicting. This is not to place Globalizations in jeopardy. Maybe someone with access to other databases is able to find something? For example, Byrdie Green; an editor with a Newspapers.com account was able to locate sources. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm going to ignore your comments about the formatting stuff (comment on the issues, do not cast asperions on somebody's motives). As for the efforts that Hinely puts into this, that's certainly commendable, but is not something that counts towards notability. Most of what you write above isn't about the zine, but about Hinely. Perhaps Hinely himself is notable, but that is not the issue here. What is the issue here is that neither one of your first two points contribute to the notability of the zine. --Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Randykitty fails WP:GNG.Lacks indepth sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per commenters above. It does not matter that this article is rather well-wrtitten. The subject is not notable, though. Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  23:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to Pharaoh of the Wizards, like Randkitty and Globalizations, I wanted to get an idea of what you use for in depth sourcing and I found Keyur Bhushan, where there is no sourcing greater than Dagger. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2019 (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.