Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki


 * 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 amongst established editors that this does not meet WP:WEB, so defaulting to keep. W.marsh 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ZineWiki


non notable website. Google 14,600hit, alexa rank: 2,910,006. AJMS 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC) — AJMS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. (acknowledging I’m the page’s creator) Google searches and Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability on Wikipedia. However, even if they were, a site that's only four months old would, of course, have low search results and rankings, as it takes a number of months for Google to update. Also, I looked at your user contributions and you joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion. It's been your only contribution. How... helpful. Alanlastufka 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, it doesn't take "a number of months" for Google to update. This article was created less than a month ago, yet, after zinewiki.com, it is the first G-hit for "ZineWiki". Second, the nominator may have proposed this article for deletion based on some ulterior motive (or, s/he may not have), but no matter what the motive, his/her reasoning is completely valid. -- Kicking222 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per multiple verified references from reliable sources. The keep is "weak" because all of the sources are zine-related, thus signifying that while the zine community (if such a thing exists) may have picked up on the site, few people outside of this group have heard of it. However, while I am arguing for this article's existence, I highly dislike that much of the article is about the creators' distaste for Wikipedia. While it's quasi-relevant to the article, it's also highly self-referential of this encyclopedia (which is to be avoided) and slightly POV (which is explicitly disallowed). -- Kicking222 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I edited the listing to drop the POV and added a link to the Portland Mercury's write up on it. There is definitely a zine community, dating back before the early days of Usenet with alt.zines, multiple yearly zine conventions, zine related books, Factsheet Five, zine libraries, zines included in college library collections, etc. ZineWiki is definitely very new and is just starting to gain attention outside the zine community, but it attempts to collect all the zine resources around the Web and in print into one complete database, which is essential to documenting America and the world's small press history and culture. ZineWiki is already the largest online guide to zines, small press publications and zine publishers and it's growing rapidly. The Wiki, like the listing, will be growing in leaps and bounds over the next few years. It seems short-sighted to delete it now because it's relevance is only justified by some Wiki editors in mainstream attention (which it will no doubt get more of in time). Dan10things 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Dan10things (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom.--Notth 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Notth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Wikipedia lists several other wikis on a wide variety of topics. ZineWiki is becoming a major repository of information about zines, both historic and current. While one might argue that the zine community is small, in terms of the online world's population or whatever, you could just as easily make the same argument about many of the communities who would use the other wikis listed within Wikipedia. Jerianne 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Jerianne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Merely being a wiki is not a sign of notability, and I have opposed the inclusion of articles here about other wikis (see Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)). ZineWiki has an external link from Zine; I don't think it needs to have a full article of its own on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Less notable than Wikifur or Encyclopedia Dramatica that have been deleted and failed deletion review. Anomo 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would think a more serious subject matter like zines and the small press that spans decades and that is a key element in social movements like punk, riot grrrl, hardcore, as well as the comic and science fiction communities, would hold a little more weight than a TV show, people that talk shit, and people that dress like squirrels. This is the first I've heard of Wikifur, but thanks for adding it in your comments, wow! For me the notability is not that it's a Wiki, it's ZineWiki's content and importance in creating a comprehensive database of information about zines and the small press--something up until now, no one had attempted.Dan10things 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Zinewiki is a reality. It deserves fair recognition in any general encyclopedia on or off line. It has recognized and celebrated the decades of recent zines - a zine explosion of thousands and thousands of independent writers and artists and desktop publishers who are the major source of quality contemporary writing and art. It celebrates a new art form, zines - that combine bookmaking, writing, publishing, and illustration. It is also representative of the world of independent and small publishers outside of the recent media/art consolidation that has occured in the last few decades. If wikipedia celebrates the hack commercial writers of the mainstream publishers - that are overly promoted - then it should cover the gifted writers outside that commercial promotion. And cover those that celebrate these gifted writers. Zinewiki does. The world of writers it covers is real. It's work is all the more important and valid for becoming the source for the history of so many gifted and neglected writers. It is a recorded history of zines and deserves recognition as a history source as much as any other history source. If writers are covered in wikipedia, then zinesters should be covered. If online sources for writers are covered, then zinewiki should be covered. If zines are covered in wikipedia how can one not cover zinewiki?  There seems to be a dangerous challenge of  all artists that aren't apart of the handful of corporations that control the mainstream arts (music, film, writing, tv, etc.). This isn't fairness its prejudice in favor of big corporations. As a zinester, I say a strong keep. 172.150.43.75 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — 172.150.43.75 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - There seems to be a lot of perpetrating in the zine world by individuals who seem to be agents for interested parties. Though I don't know zinewiki well I'd surmise that this challenge is a form of disinformation. — James Nowlan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. - I may not be someone who contributes or edits Wikipedia, but I am someone who finds it useful to use. Zinewiki on the other hand, is something that I have edited and contributed to. As someone who doesn't know much about the Wiki world, I figured that this was the same thing - but alas, I suppose not. All that aside, after reading the "notability requirements," Zinewiki does in fact, fit two of the three (according to the requirements, an entry only needs to meet one).
 * Zinewiki meets the first requirement, as it has been covered in such places as The Small Press Exchange (http://www.smallpressexchange.com/directory/magazines_and_e-zines/zines/zinewiki/details/), Supernaturale\Glimmer (http://www.supernaturale.com/glimmer.html?id=612#g612), and Powell's books (http://www.powells.com/review/2006_10_14.html). Zinewiki has also been mentioned on numerous blogs and even on some non-english language websites. The coverage on Powell's books also meets the requirement for number three, as Powell's online is an extremely well known website and the content of Zinewiki was used in a review on the site.
 * In addition to meeting the criteria, I believe that Zinewiki represents a large subculture, and is worthy of its own Wiki entry in the same fashion that Memory Alpha (the Star Trek Wiki) has its own entry. Zinewiki is a relatively new entry, and still has plenty of time to grow. It has already been of great interest to people in the zine community (trust me, there is one) and has a potential of being of great interest to people in the small press community.Aaroncynic 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) — Aaroncynic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - ZineWiki is an attempt to catalog what is in fact a huge subculture. Zines are written and created everyplace-- an authentic expression of American culture; of the American voice. Is Wikipedia to give attention only to those who've been blessed and sanctified by a select group of mandarins representing not the American voice, but their own privileged status? The writers mentioned in Zinewiki are MORE genuine, more American, than the John Updikes of the mainstream. I've made this argument in many venues, and will debate the idea anywhere. If Wikipedia is to represent a true picture of our times, of more than one cultural stream, than a site like Zinewiki has its place. -King Wenclas. — KingWenclas (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Reluctant weak keep - Frankly, I'd be happier if so many of those voting "Keep" were people who actually contribute to Wikipedia itself; and if the article, and those supporting its retention, didn't have so much trouble keeping their points of view out of the material. (And frankly, I'm unconvinced that Memory Alpha has a place here either.) The paranoia displayed here by the person calling him or herself James Nowlan is not a good sign for rational discussion.--Orange Mike 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is Wikipedia only for those who have the free time to create or edit its entries? Or does it exist for the online community to use as a powerful reference source, whether they contribute or not? I am a regular Wikipedia user, both at home and at on the job (at a library). I'm also someone, yes, very involved in and interested in zines. It's because of that involvement that I can second the validity of Dan10things's comments above. As a user, I do think it is notable. Jerianne 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What he means is, this type of debate is really designed for regular wikipedia editors to participate in. Every so often, a debate will attract a lot of new accounts, almost always supporting whatever article is under discussion -- but it doesn't help get a good picture of what the Wikipedia editing community thinks, which is what really matters (Wikipedia runs on consensus and is not a democracy).  New users can sometimes make arguments that sway established editors, but in most cases, they just state preferences, which are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.  Mango juice talk 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Orange Mike, I dislike the stream of meatpuppets here, but multiple media mentions make this pass WP:WEB in my book, and I think any POV issues have been resolved at this point.  Mango juice talk 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I'm a little hesitant, on the basis of "notability first, encyclopedia article second." I don't doubt that the Wiki has potential to be a very good resource on an area worth documenting, but the article seems a little premature. I certainly would not have started it at this time, but since it is there, I suspect that we should keep it, since it will probably merit mention soon enough. - Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. All the mentions are trivial or zine-related. The article's creator has admitted a conflict of interest. We cannot give in to a shitstorm of meatpuppets. This website is far from notable. WP:WEB is not met. - crz crztalk 22:14, 19 November 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.