Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Majorly (o rly?) 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZineWiki (2)

ZineWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article on Yet Another Wiki, sourced from blogs and internet "radio" stations (i.e. audio blogs). No evidence it has been the primary sbject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Keep - Zines are an important element of culture and counterculture alike. The zine wiki is a good resource in both the cataloguing and promotion of them. I personally discovered the zine wiki through wikipedia and it would be a shame if other people didn't have the same advantage. Besides, it's basically a sister site using wikimedia technology - you'd think that all of those wikis (certainly the well-maintained ones) would have a place on wikipedia. (Rob 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete - Non-trivial coverage from publishers not meeting WP:RS, a trivial mention from one which does. —dgiestc 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't you consider the Small Press Exchange a reliable source? JonathanPenton 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A quick search on Google reveals hundreds of webpages linked to Zine Wiki. The site itself has many thousands of visitors. This is a social and artistic movement that is obviously of some importance. It's imperative that Wikipedia includes articles on such topics, otherwise it will become an encyclopedia that only includes articles that are commercially endorsed or sanctioned by large corporate interests, such as television shows or basketball players. Obscure episodes of television shows are not the true indicator of the culture of a society, no matter how many advertising dollars are behind them, and no matter how many articles have been written about them. Culture can emerge from the internet, from small press publications such as the type that Zine Wiki documents, and may appear to be unnoticed by the dominant culture while having a noticable effect. If Wikipedia is to reflect the culture at large, rather than just that which is commercially sanctioned (a small percentage of the cultural production that affects peoples' lives), then it must include articles such as this one. If we applied the criteria that only aspects of culture that have been throughly documented by large corporate media are to be included, then half the articles on Wikipedia will disappear, particularly many articles on topics such as Punk, and punk bands; the Arts, such as Underground filmmakers; Feminism, and Gay cultures, for just an example, all of which are 'marginalized' cultures, and all of which received little exposure in mainstream media until years after their effect had already permeated the culture at large. Even if the culture of zines and the small press does not personally affect you in particular, be assured it is having an effect on many thousands of others. Many noteworthy writers and artists are, or have been, involved in zine culture and Wikipedia carries pages on them; zine editors such as Aaron Cometbus, Mark Perry, Johanna Fateman, Kathleen Hanna, G.B. Jones, Deke Nihilson, Bruce LaBruce, Donna Dresch, Vaginal Davis and Anonymous Boy, to name but a few. Wikipedia also has pages on movements that originated in zine culture such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, or movements in which zines were an important part such as Punk. It also devotes pages to zines such as Punk Magazine, Kill Your Pet Puppy, Sniffin' Glue, Girl Germs, J.D.s, and Fanorama, among others, all of which have not necessarily been mentioned in The New York Times, but have managed to affect the culture nonetheless. Will Wikipedia now delete all those pages as well? If so, then it's good that Zine Wiki does exist and documents precisely this culture. The importance of this article is obvious. Keep Intheshadows 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So much arm-waving, I'm afraid - it's completely irrelevant how many famous people have been involved in zine culture, because this is not an article on zine culture it's an article on a wiki with just over a thousand articles and only 20,000 page views on the front page. Please add multiple non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In the short time since this debate began the page views of ZineWiki have already risen to 21,500 from the 20,000 you quoted.Intheshadows 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepWikipedia needs to revise its definition of 'reliable sources'. It could reasonably be argued that the most significant impact on the publishing world in many years has been blogs. Bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan, to give but one example (and there are many), are regarded as credible journalists whose writing is widely dispersed in a manner comparable to syndicated columnists of the previous century and have greatly altered the publishing landscape. Wikipedia, it would appear, is one of the very few places where they aren't taken seriously. In contrast, Wikipedia touts the likes of The New York Times as being a 'reliable source' of information when only recently headlines throughout the world exposed the fact that they published false facts about an individual who had knowingly lied to them. My point is that Wikipedia is pursuing an antiquated notion of what constitutes a 'reliable source'. As Dan 10things argues, you are not the best judge of what a reliable source is. And, as Jonathon Penton asks above, why wouldn't you consider the Small Press Exchange a reliable source? A question, I note, you have not answered. Zine Wiki is quite obviously about zine culture. It is an article about a wiki that documents zines, zine editors and distributors and zine outlets. In essence, zine culture. ZineWiki is an extremely important part of that culture and will only grow in importance. All of the fanzines I mentioned previously never, in their lifetime, had a readership anywhere near the amount of readers who have visited ZineWiki and yet they influenced the culture and you have pages devoted to them. ZineWiki has in all likelihood more readers than any of those zines and is impacting zine culture and the culture at large as we speak. Its documentation of zines and zine editors, its determination to take seriously what is often denigrated as not being serious, is changing the nature of what constitutes publishing; of what is a 'free press', as Leafypie argues rightly; and most importantly, of what is 'trivial' and what is not. You pride yourself that your vanity website gets half as many page views as ZineWiki: you could also be proud of the fact that the amount of viewers of your website probably exceeds the readership of most of the zines I mentioned above. However, your vanity website has not had an impact on the culture. The zines I mentioned did. Likewise, Natalie, the town you lived in, the school you attended had an impact on your life. You wonder, in your comment, why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you: it's because your life did not have an impact on your town or your school and that is why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you. Zine Wiki is having an impact on the culture it is a part of, in the same way that the zines I mentioned and the zine editors I've listed above have had. Therefore, if Wikipedia has pages on those zines, however many readers they may have had, and regardless of whether or not they've been mentioned in The New York Times, then Wikipedia needs to have an article in ZineWiki.Intheshadows 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article went through a deletion nomination just four months ago, what has changed besides ZineWiki growing in content and readers? The multiple verified references from reliable sources makes this pass WP:WEB. In addition to meeting the criteria, ZineWiki appears to be the most extensive resource for zines, zine publishers and zine history available on the Web. Dan10things 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Dan10things (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (I object to being tagged as a sock puppet, I've edited Wikipedia since last year and have made contributions to 8 different articles ranging from libraries and zines to punk and musicians, the only areas I feel I have enough expertise in to contribute.)
    • Most of those citations are either blogs, internet radio, or other 'zines. The only one which I would say really matches WP:RS is the Portland Mercury one, which is just a trivial mention. —dgiestc 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine all match WP:RS. You're present the same argument was presented 4 months ago and did not get enough support for the article to be deleted. What new argument in support of deletion can you bring to the table? Dan10things 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, there are no reliable sources so you insist we accept unreliable ones. This is a wiki with only about a thousand articles. It is utterly insignificant, it has no obvious reliable independent external coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I'll try to be more clear: the argument you are presenting is the exactly what was presented four months ago and no one agreed with you. They thought the Portland Mercury article, along with the others, met notable criteria. Overwhelmingly. So presenting this recently failed argument with no extra evidence or effort makes no logical sense. What I ask of you, is what new evidence or argument can you present beyond the one that recently failed? From what I can tell, the article has only increased in notability. It's been featured on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites and it's Alexa ranking shows an increase of 300% in the past three months, an increase of 2,595,580 traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say the Portland Mercury was trivial. I said their coverage of that site was trivial as it said little about the site beyond that it exists. —dgiestc 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Portland Mercury is a fairly large alternative paper owned by Index Papers, they also own The Stranger, Chicago Reader and a few other papers. It's home of (and partly owned by) syndicated columnist and radio host Dan Savage. They generally have a lot of paragraph sized articles and blurbs on notable national and regional subjects, which is what that was. It certainly was more than one sentence saying it exists. It's also had similar blurbs on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You're making my point. The Portland Mercury is reputable, but their coverage was what you just said, a blurb. —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you are completely wrong. It's unfortunate that as a Wiki editor you place so much importance on print articles, yet have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the industry you are relying on for evidence to support your opinion. You display a complete lack of understanding as to how editorial works at a large or mid-sized publication. To you when I say "blurb" it means "trivial," something without much editorial oversight and review. When I was the music editor at a mid-sized regional magazine, a website or print blurb meant an editorial highlight of the most significant, interesting, or entertaining event, band, album, etc. of the issue. Blurbs are short, usually with a 150-200 word limit in most print and web publications, but they are hardly insignificant. A blurb that runs is picked from a number of submissions by an editorial board, discussed in depth, and the most significant article is picked as the one that runs. It's edited, proofread, layed out, goes through copy editing, etc. just as every other article in a magazine. That's a blurb, it goes through the same proccess as a longer article, only it's shorter. It pains me to have to explain this in such detail, but only someone that has never worked in the media would call a blurb insignificant or trivial. Hell, that kind of talk could get you fired by your editor. If you are going to base your opinions on articles that have run in print publications, by all means, consider actually getting involved in the publishing industry so you can know what you are talking about. That way you may actually be able to contribute an informed opinion to this discussion instead of being so obviously wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love this discussion, although I feel even though I've put together a stronger and more logical argument based on experience in the subject at hand, I'm up against a small group of Wiki editors who ban together in support of one another rather than really thinking about the subject matter and it's significance. Have you actually contributed content to any articles about zines, magazines or the publishing industry? What's your depth of knowledge on the subject matter you so happily judge? Your rules put you in a very narrow and defined box that doesn't let you see the forest through the trees. And when it comes to the subject at hand, which really is zine and self publishing resources, you definitely are not the expert here on evaluating what is or is not a valuable resource. I come from the library/information science world, where experts in the field evaluate and select resources, rather than people like you, the security guards, who usually enforce rules by telling people they can't drink soda pop in library or they are talking too loud. Dan10things 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Dan10things. "The Portland Mercury one" was an article itself dedicated to letting people know about ZineWiki, that's not trivial. Also, the next print issue of Broken Pencil dedicated an entire article to ZineWiki along with an interview they did with me about the site. Which isn't on this site yet because it's not in print yet, but it will be shortly. As Dan said, we were just through this a few months ago and they didn't see fit to delete us then. The site has well over 350,000+ article views and over 550+ registered users in less than nine months of existence. Alanlastufka 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and no independent non-trivial coverage. Which means that the number of page views is irrelevant. And that's only twice as many page views as my vanity website over the same period. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see the point of renominating something which was accepted at the first AfD, and has clearly grown more notable since.DGG 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It was not "accepted", it was no consensus, and since then the primary notability criterion has been drawn up, which gives an objective test for notability. Which this fails. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the page you are talking about is less than 4 weeks old and it's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed, do you really think it's fair to use it as evidence to support your argument until it's been fully accepted? Dan10things 06:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. No consensus is always fair game for another discussion. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You failed to support the answer to my question, I was really hoping for an explanation because it's unclear to me and I can tell from your profile you spend a lot of time arguing for deletion of articles and are quite passionate about getting into these discussions. Does the WikiPedia community as a whole think it's fair to use a brand new page that's currently under dispute, like primary notability criterion, as evidence to support deleting an article? Or should we wait until it's been fully established and accepted to use it as evidence? Dan10things 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Searched around, pretty deeply, but alas no sources that make it qualify. Delete, recreate later on down the road if coverage increases per criteria... - Denny 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is demonstrated as notable, through reliable sources. 500 registered users is a drop in the bucket on the Internet. Natalie 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Consensus can change, and it has with the new primary notability criterion. Reliiiiable soooources... -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Reliable sources as in The New York Times type of reliable sources?Intheshadows 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - By all means, keep! Insignificant newsgroups that are less notable than ZineWiki have entries. Tiny little towns with 3 people that are less notable have entries. ZineWiki is a very valuable and respected resource, even among people who have only very little contact with zining. The effort to delete has more to do with silencing independent press than anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.138.5 (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, one of the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You might want to see WP:BASH, specifically this part, "When policy and doctrine is quoted like Scripture, and arguments not founded upon this Scripture pre-emptively discounted, the process becomes more rancorous and divisive than necessary. The various policies and guidelines are meant to reflect consensus. They are not given as laws to set boundaries to consensus. To the extent that a policy or guideline fails to reflect consensus, the policy or guideline requires revision. Familiarity with various policies, guidelines, or essays is something that comes from experience with the project. Only people who have already committed themselves to fairly extensive involvement in the project get deep enough into the mechanics and politics of editing to read that material. As such, quoting them as gospel to newcomers to the project is intimidating, may be seen as hostile, and contradicts current guidelines: "Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism". It is a bad idea for us to have essays or worse, guidelines that invite administrators to treat some opinions as less equal than others. It is a bad idea to announce that opinions on these discussions will be discounted unless they are argued with reference to insider jargon." Dan10things 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It is a worse idea to use the fact that other non-notable things are included as a reason this one should be, too. -Amarkov moo! 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Something I'd like to add: I also think we should "keep" because the ZineWiki is exactly the sort of thing people might look up, and this article would very useful to them. I honestly don't see what the fuss is over "reliability", because that's clearly pretty well covered by sources that make mention of ZineWiki.4.225.137.186 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, SNAP! Point taken. —dgiestc 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only sources are blog posts or trivial mentions. Its statistics page is less than impressive as well. Wickethewok 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The problem with asking for more credible sources from ZineWiki is that the Independent community has none, by your definition. We're rarely covered by the major media sources and our only history lies in what we remember and what we've recorded for ourselves in blogs and in 'zines. My question to you is; does this make it any less valid? Free media, true free media, is defined by the people and their right to free speech, to publishing underground papers and 'zines and their right to disseminate these works. Certainly, under major media attacks on the credibility of Wikimedia and its sources, one might feel the need to do away with all things which cannot meet so-called "higher standards", but one must also ask if this isn't overkill? I believe that ZineWiki is part of free media and therefore held to different standards of what can be considered credible. It's a resource to the independent community, for better or worse, and there-in lies its value. --Leafypie 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — Leafypie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Credible sources are a non-negotiable point. That this has only been covered by other 'zines and blogs suggests it is not notable to the wider world. Nobody is questioning people's right to free speech, but something self-published simply does not carry the same weight as one with with paid staff, editorial oversight, incorporation, etc... —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    The print media industry is dying. Believe me, I know, I've spent the last 20 year of my life in it publishing zines, newspapers and magazines as well as working in academic libraries. While you may be an expert at Wikipedia rules, my expertise lies in information science and publishing. I've lost tens of thousands of dollars trying to keep print publications alive, but our readers are moving every day away from magazines, zines and newspapers towards websites for news and entertainment. I've watched multi-million dollar library serials budgets move from print publications to online full-test resources. This point is non-negotiable as well, the online media is already taking over the print media, who's days are numbered. At some point Wikipedia will have to deem online news resources as credible media, and honestly, the point isn't now, it was two years ago. It's amazing how far ahead of Wikipedia the academic and commercial world are in this matter. ZineWiki has currently been written about in the following credible and verifiable media resources: The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet, Rivet Magazine, the Underground Media Alliance and the Small Press Exchange. All have an extensive staff and editorial oversight. As someone that's owned, edited and published a magazine with paid staff, editorial oversight, and incorporation, I fully support the ZineWiki article. It's an amazing resource that pulls together in an encyclopedia form decades of independent publications, something you cannot find anywhere else online or in print. Obviously you are not a librarian, nor do you care about the independent press, but realize that for those of us that are and do, ZineWiki is a highly valuable resource. Dan10things 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    The intrinsic value of the subject of the article is not in question. The availability of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject is. —xyzzyn 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Underground Literary Alliance and Punk Planet sources aren’t independent. The Small Press Exchange reference does not have any indication of reliability. The other sources are blogs (I include in this description the Flat Four Radio reference) without redeeming importance and therefore not acceptable. In particular, there is no indication that the Portland Mercury reference actually was published in that magazine. —xyzzyn 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    You are wrong, the Underground Literary Alliance is absolutely independent of ZineWiki. I'm a ZineWiki editor and probably the biggest critic of the ULA (follow the alt.zines discussion if you want to see how wrong you are, it's not pretty). The Portland Mercury, Rivet Magazine and Small Press Exchange are all independent as well. You are correct on Punk Planet, it's print articles on the small press run on ZineWiki. Dan10things 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Portland thing is a blog entry. I don't know anything about the "ULA", but it really does not look reliable at all (it looks like a personal web site or something). Rivet thing is also a blog entry and the Small Press Exchange is a trivial listing (anyone can post their information there). Wickethewok 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, if you admit knowing nothing about the ULA, why did you say they aren't an independent source in your reason for deletion? That was complete misinformation on your part. FYI, it's not too hard to find out about the ULA, they've grabbed headlines in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. in recent years. I'll I'd ask is that you make an informed opinion, rather than make false assumptions and statements before reaching your conclusion. Dan10things 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At the very top of the ULA reference, we find ‘This week's report by Alan Lastufka of Fall of Autumn’; in the article under discussion, we find ‘ZineWiki was created in July 2006 by Alan Lastufka […]’. Something written by the founder of the subject of the article is certainly not an independent source. —xyzzyn 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Before there was the internet, there was the 'Zine. Now, to clarify, the innovation of cheap photocopying created an explosion in the 'small press' that again magnified in the years when powerful graphics capable home computers became affordable BUT the internet was still limited and expensive to get on, or to have a webpage on. This golden era, around 89-94/96 had a renissance of zines. Ah, that young idealism again. bOING bOING...anyone? Yeah, I'm personal on this, I started doing artwork to put stuff in 'zines, then made my own on the computer when I got one, but printed and photocopied them. Comics, artworks, raving rants, etc. It sure beat trying to scale down things to almost Atari 2600 level, then pushing them through a dialup modem who's speed was crippled by companies (from the big dogs to the startups) who didn't FEEL like giving good speed to 'rural' people. I never had an ISDN, it went from 1200 baud to 56k to CABLE. However, I've had stuff published in zines here and there and my zines have reached around the globe. Zines still are an important element of culture, mainly as a bridge between the "Underground" and "Mainstream" and will become quite popular again when either the government or the big companies do a real assault/takeover on the 'net. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) — GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The bulk of contemporary publishing for the last few decades has been zines. There have been more zines published than mainstream publishing - more variety and more innovation by far. Seeing mainstream publishing of mostly bad novels by a handfull of conglomerates, as all that is, is insular thinking. The world publishes zines more than novels. Zinewiki is a reflection of zines, which are the choice of most writers today. I have edited for zinewiki, and I think it has the same reason to be as wikipedia itself - it is an encyclopedia - in this case - of independent publishing. Zinewiki contains all the entries from the Zine Hall of Fame, that Musea started. It is a 10 year celebration of the best of zines. As editor of the 15 year old zine, Musea, I think Zinewiki is the major source of documentation on the major source of publishing of our era. An online encylopedia without zinewiki is an online encyclopedia that is denying the thousands and thousands of indie publishers that have made zines the key literary movement of the last few decades. Musea 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Self testimonials are a type of argument to avoid on AFD. They really don't help fix the reliable sources problem. Wickethewok 06:37, 26 March 2007 (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.