Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DargonZine


 * 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. Wizardman 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DargonZine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Multiple unresolved tagged issues since creation in June 2008. Original research by member of website. No reliable sources. Non-notable. Seregain (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a magazine that predates the internet and still exists has no reliable sources whatsoever. Have you checked if the SFWA consider this zine a qualifying publication for its members? - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A search of the SFWA website shows no mention of Dargonzine. Seregain (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't list all qualifiers by name. There are criteria a zine needs to meet. Certain business practices and payment ranges for authors. I've added another link to allow searching sources under the zines old name. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons given in nomination. Achissden (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't predate the internet, but from the early days of the internet, where quite a lot of notable  things had no conventional RSs. This one, however, does:  It meets the basic requirements of having an ISSN, and being listed  in Ulrichs, as  a full entry , which confirms the basic  information in the article and is a RS, for it.  It's even in worldCat, which is a free resource:  -- and 21 WorldCat libraries have chosen to catalog it, which is not all that common for ezines.  What's more, there's a   reliable signed  short review in a selective publication, which I copy here, "Magazines for Libraries, (Jan 12, 2009; ISSN: 1080-9910)	"DargonZine is the product of the "Dargon Project," a "shared world" of amateur writers who author the fiction featured in this electronic resource. Many authors write with regard to a common milieu, sharing settings, and characters. Stories included in this e-zine are related to Dargon, a fantasy world that is predominantly human, at a late-medieval technology level, where magic is relatively rare. The concept is novel, and the stories are usually compelling and entertaining. Access is entirely online and free at www.dargonzine.org. (Donovan, Carrie)" (MforL is to some degree the equivalent of Choice, though not limited to academic titles.)    DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any online publication can get an ISSN free of charge, so that's not evidence of notability. That blurb is mostly a paraphrase from the site's "About" page. And simply being a result in Worldcat is not evidence of notability, either, since it probably got listed through some form of automated web search. Most significantly, since the article was created by a member of the site, it may also be an attempt at self-promotion. - Achissden (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: In short, this looks like a traditional SF APA-zine, just posted online, the likes of which have populated the SF world by the hundreds over the years, very, very few of which have ever passed any verifiability or notability bar.   Ravenswing  10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete even if we decide to give this some sort of free pass on not having any reliable sources because it (almost) "predates the internet", (which has "bad idea" written all over it if you ask me) that doesn't explain why it still has no reliable sourcing or notability in the years since then, as according to the article it's still going on. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless a magazine gets in the news because of some scandal, the most indepth and detailed coverage will happen at its inception from people who report on its creation. After that you'll only notice passing mentions from authors who have published with the zine. Compare it to new books. They'll rarely receive indepth coverage long after their release unless the book becomes a classic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think you'll get any disagreement that obscure publications have difficulty attracting attention from reliable sources. I just don't see anything in WP:V exempting them from its provisions because of that.  That policy is quite unequivocal: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."   Ravenswing  15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Any project with continuous online existing archives over 20 years is notable for that regard only; the more remarkable that it has kept continuous operation since the era of BITNET. You deletionists might not care for the style of the work, but frankly there's not many online collaborative efforts you can point to with the same tenure and thus it's valuable and encyclopedic to note its ongoing existence.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The fact that the online archives have existed for so long only means that people associated with the site have paid to keep them around for that long. So what if someone keeps their amateur fic laying around online for years? - Achissden (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "notable for that regard only?" Who says?  What part of the WP:WEB notability criteria does this site fulfill?  Zero.    Ravenswing  10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, mostly per DGG, and because claim to be longest running ezine appears to be verifiable. Candidate for substantial cleanup rater than deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the claim appears to be verifiable, why hasn't any reliable, non-trivial third-party bothered to try and actually verify it? I suspect that if the site member hadn't created the article, it wouldn't exist today. And in fact, to quote from the Talk page, the creator wrote "Well, I'd like to try and defend the inclusion of DargonZine in Wikipedia." Seems like even then, the person knew it didn't belong. But regardless, it still fails the other notability tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achissden (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (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.