Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagger (zine) (2nd nomination)


 * 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  no consensus . Seems like this article has new sources after the last deletion discussion and the main point of contention appears to be whether the rather bare-bones sources nevertheless satisfy GNG requirements even after throwing out a bunch of self-published ones. Seems like this is pretty evenly split between folks who think the sources scrape by and these who don't, with no side having a killer argument. Perhaps the delete case is a bit stronger, but not in my assessment enough to warrant a "delete" close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed the closure to delete per discussion on my talk page. It seems like the sources discussed here were already (implicitly) assessed in the preceding AfD and judged insufficient, and comments from previous participants indicated that they still consider them inadequate. Thus, it now is a consensus for deletion. There is no consensus on whether an article on Hinely might be notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Dagger (zine)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was just deleted a couple of days ago. The creator opened a case at DRV, which was on its way to an endorse outcome when the DRV was withdrawn and the article re-created in mainspace. This isn't quite close enough to the deleted version for WP:G4, and I'm involved at this point, so bringing it here for a broader look and a more authoritative conclusion. Given that we seem to have an editor intent on recreating this, I suggest the title be salted after deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Dagger now has citations from dozens of reviews in reputable magazines. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this a failure of WP:SK Criteria 1 (fails to advance any argument for deletion)? I feel like the only basis of this AfD is "an article was deleted and was recreated but because it is not G4 worthy it is going to AfD." Was WP:BEFORE done to show that the new article still does not establish notability (I will assume it was under WP:AGF but I still have to ask as it's not said at all)? Currently I have no opinion on this right now ( had very persuasive arguments on the 1st AfD to be honest) and will check back when I have time to for all these sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Again, I hope my comment was not offensive, because that was never my intention. I was just surprised to see a nomination by an admin that has no analysis of anything in a giant article in AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My own examination (as I explained in the DRV) of the two versions was that the sources were very similar. At the DRV, I asked  what had changed between the version that was deleted and the new draft they were proposing.  The best they could offer was, The article has been improved, The article is expanded roughly three times in length, and The article is well sourced. It has dozens of reviews in reputable magazines, but they did not point out any specific sources which were new.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, that makes a sense now. My bad I haven't checked DRV thinking it wasn't so important since it was withdrawn. Thanks for the response and will vote this week when I am able for a thorough reading of the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Thanks to for pinging me. I was unaware that a DRV had been opened and that this article was re-created 2 days after the previous AfD, when  apparently was unable to find all these in-depth sources. Despite the reference bombing, I see no reason to change my !vote from the previous AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's some rationale for passing WP:GNG.
 * "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." - It has multiple reviews in Punk Planet, Maximumrocknroll, Factsheet Five, Alternative Press Review, Option, Razorcake and Zine Guide.
 * The journal is historically important in its subject area. - it soon will be the last music zine still in print.
 * Is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. - noted by Pitchfork, on the topic of music zines as "one of the best." - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could point out specifically which sources are new since the previous AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "While not a local magazine, Dagger suffers when taken out of Portland, it seems to require vast knowledge of the densely populated indie music scene. Lukcily, Tim has that knowledge, and he likes to share. Indie pop eats itself in an implosion of rare factoids and obscure interviews." - Punk Planet #63.
 * "Music zine that features a Bitch Magnet interview as a centerfold. More interesting with my bias were Tim's charry zine reviews, managing to put a fresh light on the same old stuff. He also does a batch of records and singles and prints some strange fictional stuff too." - Factsheet Five #40
 * Dagger was, is and always shall be Tim Hinely. First published in the backwoods of a New Jersey ranch house in 1987 and still being published in print to this day, he's the congenial guy next door who looks like he should be coaching a Cinnaminson, NJ Little League team or barbecueing on the 4th of July while retelling Jackie Martling jokes. Instead, Tim channels his Protestant work ethic, informed as it is by a fevered music hound's tilt, into lionizing underground rock no-counts working the crease. (He probably coaches and barbecues too.) The early years of Dagger during the late 80's and early 90's found Tim interviewing the Antiseen, hitching a ride in the Surgery can and yucking it up with "A-listers of the highest order, like Tesco and Mark Eitzel and the beloved yet exasperating chosen ones in bands named Killdozer, Christmas, Honor Role, Dinosaur, Urge Overkill, the Laughing Hyenas, et al. What makes that worthy for remembrance and distinguishes Tim's zine is his congenial lover's tone and inexplicable earnestness, like it's as natural to be passing Suckdog's Drugs Are Nce down the church pew as it is the collection plate. Should fellow parishioners look agape in his direction, he'd simply declare convincingly, "There's no problem ma'am. It's a great record!" Tim and friends post daily sermons to this day at the Dagger website and he issued Dagger #46 - on paper, mind you - in November 2013." - Dynamite Hemorrhage #1
 * A music zine that is mostly wall-to-wall reviews, zines, live shows, records, singles, tapes, they're all here (CDs being conspicuous by their absence). That's cool, Tim writes well and slams things that need slamming while keeping an open mind about the rest and knowing his stuff when it comes to punk and other strange new music. Also includes stuff on Surgery, the Bastards, and a couple of other bands. - Factsheet Five #37
 * Dagger is a 28-page punk zine of the angry, yet sensitive, young man variety. This, the "Gone to California" issue, inlcudes an interview with punk folkstress Lios Maffeo, and some (more amusing than average) zine, show and record reviews. $3 will get you a copy. - Alternative Press Review
 * The Portland-based music zine features interviews with Jesse Malin of D-Generation, Britta Phillips of Luna and others. It has multiple review sections, each by a different person with a different style, but all showing a deep knowledge of punk/indie music/ Despite its nice newsprint format, through, the layout is very bland. - Punk Planet #30
 * An ambitious, black-and-white newsprint zine from Portland. Dagger is abundant with interviews (Thurston Moore, Jad Far, etc.) and reviews. There's a standout piece on good riffs in rock music. In general, Dagger doesn't cover much territory. Overall, a generic zzzzzzine. - Punk Planet #74
 * Lessee.... interviews with Small Factory, Envelope, and Dixie Pig Dick Executioners, and a thing about Tim Buckley. A pretty neat zine that has way long reviews, including show reviews! Show reviews, goddmmit! Crazy. Maximumrocknroll #138
 * A thick compilation of reviews and interviews with the likes of Tad, Tar, Texas Instruments and Antiseen. The green cover doesn't make me horny and the content doesn't get me excited either. I'm not saying it's bad (it's obvious that Tim puts time and thought into it), but nonetheless it just ain't punk (and I am). Maximumrocknroll #80
 * "If I lived in Portland, Oregon, I'd probably pick this up when I saw it. It is free, after all. My biggest pet peeve is that, like The Big Takeover, the reviews are organized by reviewer. I read review sections pretty thoroughly, looking for a band I've heard about and want to know more, or to see what people think about albums I really like or hate. By sectioning it by reviewer, I never make it all that far into it before just giving up." - Razorcake #16
 * "If you like interviews, this is your zine. Included for your enjoyment are conversations with All Girl Summer Fun Band, Redd Kross, The Deathray Davies, Catherine Irwin and others. A heaping helping of music reviews follows all these. Eat up!" - Punk Planet #59
 * "Not too many music-qua-music 'zines have swum before us this season, but the redoubtable Dagger has hit issue 41 with everything in order. Tim Hinely's been doing this ’zine since back in the Forced Exposure days, and he still puts together a great pile of reviews and features that rock rock rock." - Arthur #32
 * "As far as I can tell, the only 'zines in this collection that still exist are Metal Core and Dagger. Tim Hinely began publising his most recent issue #43, in Winter 2010." - Public Collectors
 * "On the indie pop front, Sky Blue Records has a great comp CD "Popular World." The label of indie mogul Tim of the great Dagger zine, this includes many..." - Maximumrocknroll #214
 * Tim – "When my sister and I were young, I'm a year older so I would have been 8 and her 7, we would make little magazines together. I think that was the beginning (though they were not about music). I began reading lots of zines (mostly music zines) in my early 20s and then a pal in South Jersey published his first zine, Big Fuckin' Deal so that spurred me into action. The first Dagger came out in March of 1987. Oh man…..all of the great people I have met in doing the zines as well as swapping zines with people, chatting, corresponding, etc. It gave me a reason to approach some of my favorite bands/musicians and ask 'em to do interviews. Man. Probably a zinester because as I've said, I've met so many cool people and it has given me an identity in a way. I do most of my zine stuff (reviews, etc.) either early in the morning or at night when she is either in bed or upstairs with my wife watching TV.  I'm usually able to get stuff done. Sometimes." - QRD #73
 * "Seriously, how hard is it to push the "publish" button on a website, compared to the work that’s involved with laying out an array of 8 ½” x 10? pages, arranging ads, shipping the thing off to a printer and then going about the distribution and mailing of a 'zine? I speak here as one who spent over a decade, starting in the late '70s, publishing a string of my own 'zines...) Tim Hinely, straight outta Portland, has been publishing the mighty Dagger zine for ages now, and with his latest issue, Winter 2010-11, he’s up to number 43. The latest issue features a slew of in-depth Q&As: Bob Fay (Sebadoh, Cardinal, etc.), weighing in on his career, on the Boston music scene, and more." Blurt
 * "In the 1980s and 90s, photocopied, hand-stapled music magazines-- known best as "fanzines"-- seemed as ubiquitous as blogs are today[,] many of which didn't last past issue #1[.] One of the best, Tim Hinely's Dagger, is still going strong." - Pitchfork

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I understand the points made to delete, and they are solid, but I think that if could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If  cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete.
 * Comment - See the comment above for passing WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) - NorthPark1417 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: It seems to me that almost all of the above long list of quotes mention Dagger in passing while talking about Tim Hinely. I still think that the zine is not notable, but Hinely seems to be, so probably it would be better to write an article about him in which Dagger could have a paragraph. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - a lengthy Google search plus reading of the cited sources doesn't demonstrate indepth coverage. In addition to this, many of the sources seem to be self-published. I'd like to see a single piece in a reliable source that is just about Dagger. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The sources provide adequate coverage and none listed are trivial. Maximumrocknroll is the "de facto bible of the scene," of which there are five sources. Factsheet Five is the "most important publication in its field." The journal is historically important in its subject area, as it soon will be the last music zine still printed. Self-published, printed fanzines is a vast, long-lifed subculture with a long tradition, and there are thousands of music fanzines, of which Dagger will be the last one. It is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area, which, according to Pitchfork media, it is "one of the best." These criteria alone make Dagger notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there an in-depth profile of Dagger in a reliable source, where dagger is the main topic? I agree that ALL the sources don't need to be just about Dagger, but I'm not seeing one. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - A profile as in depth as the one I've written undermines Wikipedia's purpose. Review journals are not equal to website reviews. If these magazines were 21st century, Dagger would have a unique url, instead of sharing the page with others. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I’m not following your logic. Lack of in-depth coverage usually indicates lack of notability. TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  02:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.