Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFanzines.com


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. The Land 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

EFanzines.com
Another site from the submitters of FanboyPlanet.com that fails WP:WEB. -- Perfecto 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Perfecto 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would also add "speedy if possible," but according to WP:CSD, it is not possible. We should be able to speedy these sites. SYCTHOS talk  02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A web-based archive with substantial popular culture-historical content. Material on the site was originally published in ephemeral editions, and this archive is probably the only current means of accessing the content.  Some of it deserves to be ephemeral, to be sure, but a significant share of the content is considered notable in the appropriate fields. I've rewritten the article to eliminate its reference to the self-promoter from FanboyPlanet and add references to a few of the more notable writers/editors involved. Monicasdude 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it doesn't pass, it goes. Baby and bathwater. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 05:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But it passes WP:WEB criterion 2, including significant content that "has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." The deletion-nominator has edited the article to remove references to that content, and I've restored them. Monicasdude 12:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Monicsdude, please cite sources, so we're sure you're not pulling it out of an another Fanzine's hat. --Perfecto 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the linked, already well-documented Wikipedia articles (the references you deleted) aren't sufficient to support an assertion of notability? The publications/writers are listed on the front page of the Efanzines site. We're not talking about terribly obscure stuff here, after all. The site has 30,000+ Google hits, as well. Indiscriminately tagging articles for deletion because you think their creator is a self-promoting jackass isn't good practice (even when the creator is a self-promoting jackass). Monicasdude 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS ...and what you wrote is, the fanzines it happens to have permission to host won an award, not the site. WP:WEB??
 * Yes, that's accurate. Under WP:WEB criterion 2, it's sufficient if either "The website or content" has won a recognized award. Since you agree that the site includes award-winning content, what's your argument for deletion? That the site can't be notable because it includes too much content? Monicasdude 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with an article on Energumen (fanzine), with an external link to efanzine. Let's see what others think. --Perfecto  15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what your argument for deletion is, since you aren't disputing that the site meets WP:WEB criterion 2. Energumen is by no means the only relevant content on this point, and, aside from those, quite a few of the fanzines/writers who didn't win Hugos meet the alternative standard that "Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." Monicasdude 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what your argument for deletion is, since you aren't disputing that the site meets WP:WEB criterion 2. Energumen is by no means the only relevant content on this point, and, aside from those, quite a few of the fanzines/writers who didn't win Hugos meet the alternative standard that "Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." Monicasdude 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is another that I put up, partly because of my close friendship with one of the principals. I think eFanzines.com is the most important site in fandom right now due to the fact that it is one of maybe two that are trying to 1) preserve fanzines from the past by providing a space for the scans to be stored and accessed and is 2) the largest site for current fanzines to be seen by a larger audience. It is an important site, nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Website in 2005 and should be included.
 * Delete as non-notable and approaching vanity. Looks like a group of folks willing to create articles for each other and vote for each other when AfDs come up (see Christopher J. Garcia). --Bugturd  Talk 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I've not no connection with the self-promoting clown who created this batch of articles, and the only AfD I object to is this one. This site has content that's undeniably notable (having won the recognized Hugo Award), and the overall site was nominated for that award last year. Nobody here denies that the site is notable under criterion 2 of WP:WEB. "Created by a self-promoting jackass" is not a sufficient reason for deletion if the subject of the article meets notability criteria. Monicasdude 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * regardless of what you think of me or my other posts, if I had never posted anything else, would eFanzines.com be considered? I'd say it would. It does pass WP:WEB Criterion 2, as pointed out, but more importantly, it's a site that hosts zines created by at least five Hugo winners, many nominees (at least ten that I can find) and at least two Hugo-winning fanzines. It also won a FAAn Award in 2004 and is widely regarded in fandom.Mlloyd
 * Delete as non-notable webcruft. Ifnord 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable website. —Cleared as filed. 12:52, 4 February 2006 (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.