Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DargonZine (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DargonZine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online magazine tagged since June 2008. Both of the 2 earlier AfDs were closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'd think that such a long running zine would have something out there, but there's really not much. I found a mention in this publication, plus it looks like it was listed in a directory by Michael Strangelove and was one of only 26 of its type that were included. However I can't verify how in-depth the first link is and even if the second was seen as exclusive, it's still a directory. It looks like the University of Toronto has access to an archived version of the zine. I initially thought that this meant that they were hosting this in their archives, which would count for something since digital archiving is so expensive and time consuming that most major institutions will only archive things that they believe are of specific importance. However this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't really determine who exactly is doing the archiving here - I get the impression that it's general public access, though. I'm adding this info because it's one of several small things that give off the impression that there should be more out there, however I'm not really finding anything definite so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a paragraph about this zine here. That goes into enough depth to where I'd say that would count towards notability. It's not enough by itself, but it's a good start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in this journal article through Library Trends. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's archived (or was at some point) via the University of Pittsburgh. This just really seems like it's one of those things that should be notable - it's long lived, has merited specific mention by two RS as a good example of their type, and looks to have been archived at one point by a notable university in some form or fashion. Those aren't things that happen to just any online zine, honestly. It's just that the coverage here is so light. I'm going to ping DGG on this to see what he thinks and in the hopes that he can find coverage I might not have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another mention here, but I can't verify how in-depth it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a pioneering zine. As I said to the first afd & summarize now: 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, -- and 80 WorldCat libraries have chosen to catalog it, which is not all that common for ezines. In addition to the source found by TokyoGirl here, 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 ) 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's rationale and my own comments above. The coverage of this isn't insanely heavy, but what is out there does suggest that this is a notable example within its type, as it was specifically highlighted in the EoSF and at least one point in time was singled out to be archived. As someone who is currently studying in the field of digital archiving, that's not something that's done lightly, as archivists need to justify the time and money put into the initial and future archiving, which can be quite substantial. Honestly, after taking these classes I would suggest that a person/outlet's materials getting archived by a major institution should count towards notability, akin to how an artist showing their work at a major art museum would contribute towards their notability. (Albeit I'd argue that this should only count if the archived material is done as part of a large amount of content that is archived under the individual or organization's name, as opposed to one piece semi-arbitrarily being in a large collection filled with other people's documents.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's research into notability. Jclemens (talk)

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.