Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dankendismal


 * 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. One review does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL or [{WP:GNG]], even if it was written by E. Gary Gygax. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dankendismal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A short-lived fanzine (8 issues) that got one short review in a short-lived magazine (7 issues). The full review is this: "DANKENDISMAL is  a  mimeo  D  &  D  ‘zine  from  John  Morrison,  327  MaylandAv.,  Moorestown,  NJ  08057.  It  contains  some  interesting  ideas,  though  it  is  ratherlacking  in  organization.  It  is  well  worth  the  bargain  price  of  10¢  plus  a  SASE,  butuntil we see how it grows, we rate it UNDECIDED"

No idea how this is supposed to be a notable magazine, and the abundance of 10 Google hits didn't really overwhelm me either. Fram (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep One correction to the OP: Strategic Review only has seven issues because it was retitled The Dragon, the pre-eminent games industry journal for almost 30 years. The review in the pages of SR #6, while short, is by none other than Gary Gygax, co-developer of Dungeons & Dragons. For industry giant Gygax to take note of Dankendismal, however brief, is notable. The fact that Bowling Green University made the decision to archive a collection of the 'zine also suggests notability.Guinness323 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. That a university library keeps some ephemera is standard practice and is not an indication of notability (heck, they may have been part of a large collection that was donated in toto, no indication that the uni went out of its way to get hold of this fanzine in any case). They have quite a few of these D&D fanzines in any case. Hardly an indication of notability, just like an extremely short note about this, even by a notable (but not independent) person. Fram (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per input from Guinness323, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PRESERVE is not a catch all to just keep all content, regardless of notability or sources. And what WP:ATD are you proposing here?  I don't think you can just cite an alternative to deletion, and have your alternative just be not deletion.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Regardless of who wrote the review, it is still an incredibly brief, three sentence blurb. It is also, seemingly, the only source available regarding this minor publication.  That single, brief source is, alone, not enough to come close to passing the WP:GNG. Notability is also not inherited, so the fact that Gygax wrote three sentences regarding it does not confer any special bonus notability to those three sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to encourage more participation by the community. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
 * Delete Not enough media coverage however if it was a pricey collectible it might be notable but the is no evidence of that, doesn’t help that it was a short run of publications. Jaxbrother (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, one review is not enough to establish notability. Devonian Wombat talk) 01:59, 31 January 2020 (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.