Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DargonZine (2nd nomination)

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. After two relistings, there's unlikely to be any change in the lack of consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DargonZine

No reliable third-party sources can be found for the claims made herein. The sole claim for notability (the publication's longevity) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Comment: If this ezine predates mainstream use of the net it might qualify as the earliest ezine that is still running). If it can be verified, such a record would be a proper claim for notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author of the article looks to be on the staff, judging by the comments on the talk page. Wouldn't that be a WP:COI? May not it also be going against WP:NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpbrood (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would be COI if a staffer is editing the article, but that is insufficient reason for deletion (just caution). I haven't seen any obvious POV violations in the article, but those can be edited out, a COI doesn't automatically lead to POV. Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry to say I found several, without really looking, as shown here [1]. Typically, I would go ahead and reference the piece, but as you will note above, I am currently working on several articles at the present time. I believe I should allow someone else the thrill of saving an article from the throes of AFD :-). Happy New Year’s. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That Google scholar link seems, if anything, to prove it's not notable in any way. Teh only mentions are extremely trivial. Notability requires multiple nontrivial coverage in respected third party sources of note themselves. As far as I can tell, this has nothing at all that comes close. Every mention I see in the article and elsewhere is about as trivial as you can get. Merely being present on a huge long list of ezines doesn't mean anything, or else we'd have to have articles for all of those ezines. Being reference by another nonnotable source doesn't make one or both of them notable. (And, personally, per COI rules I'd generally say any article substantially created by someone with a COI should be deleted outright, and if they want to make a case for its inclusion that should raise it on an appropriate talk page/village pump/whatever.) DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, what constitutes multiple coverage, 3 – 5 – 10 – 100? The article is cited in excess of 10 sources. Second, COI is not a reason for deletion. As long as the article is written in a NPOV and is not self-promoting there is nothing wrong. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you taking into account the quality of the citations? Going through the list of Google Scholar results as linked above, one citation merely paraphrases the milieu description, two simply list the name of the publication in an index or list, while two other links (the ones with the French titles) point to the same article. However the case, a few fleeting memtions in scholarly papers written years ago are weak justification for notability. Sharpbrood (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one article is cited a 107 times. Is that outstanding, no, but it ani’t that bad either :-). Regarding age, I have always interpreted the guidelines as such that once notability is established, it has no timeframe. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the point. The article itself may have been cited 107 times, but has DargonZine been mentioned in all 107 of those citations? It seems to be about electronic publishing in general, not about DargonZine specifically. - Sharpbrood (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When the article is cited, the whole article is cited. If DargonZine is mentioned in that particular article, than yes it is mentioned 107 times. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.