Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zum!


 * 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 but open to reconsidering if anyone has new evidence. W.marsh 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zum!


Non-notable defunct zine. The website doesn't even exist anymore. Reads like advertising. IrishGuy talk 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zum! is an important part of the history of the British small press comics maiking it notable. The other arguements for deletion are:
 * It is defunct - which would imply we can remove other entries for defunct publications.
 * The website doesn't exist - this also plays into it being defunct as it has largely trasnferred online but clicking on the link leads to the website.
 * It reads like advertising - if so then a bit of copy editting will sort that out.
 * I vote keep (Emperor 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment AfD is not a "vote". Please provide an rationale for your opinion.--Isotope23 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As of this morning when I put it up for AfD, the website was down. Alexa shows no traffic as well, so I imagine it was down for a while. Apparently, it is back up now. IrishGuy talk 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think they were talking to me - I gave my justification for my opinion in the list above. If it is my use of the word "vote" then I recommend keep for the three reasons I give: it is important, not defunct and if the remaining problem is the tone of the content then that is something to fix by copy editting not deletion. I'm unsure how solid Alexa is - it only shows few people who use their tool bar visit the site. It could be they have had trouble with their server/hosting recently or it may only just have been listed - I note Amazon hasn't assigned a ASIN. (Emperor 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Actually, it was the way it was formatted; I didn't realize the justification above was your post. It looked like you were just saying "I vote keep", which is not the case.  Apologies.--Isotope23 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No worries I should have been clearer - added my recommendation up front followed by the justification (Emperor 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete. This article makes no claim to notability. The fact that the publication was 'distinctive' does not make it notable in the sense of WP:NN. WJBscribe 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to Emperor: you stated that Zum! magazine was "an important part of the history of the British small press comics making it notable." In what way? Was it influential in the way other British comics were produced? Did it pioneer a certain technique, literary approach, or now-widely-used structure? "Distinctiveness" doesn't show notability; its influence on the trade would (the larger, the better)... and any assertion of this needs to be sourced. The current article show none of this. Reluctant delete for now.B.Wind 00:53, 5 December 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.