Talk:DargonZine

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 18 July 2016, see discussion.
no consensus, 2 December 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comment[edit]

Well, I'd like to try and defend the inclusion of DargonZine in Wikipedia. How can I start? A non-profit volunteer electronic magazine that's been in continuous production since the early days of the internet seems a notable item. It even has an ISSN number! It has served as a forum for amateur authors to improve their craft for over 24 years and used technology to bring people together from across the world. Dargon2008 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/10/08 - I've gone ahead and edited the article to cite references from historical internet archives including NetHistory and Textfiles.com. I hope this helps establish that the ezine has, in fact, been around for 24 years. And I hope that its ties with BITNET, the academic network in place before the mainstream establishment of the internet, can convince the editors that the group's continued existence warrants an entry in Wikipedia Dargon2008 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the available data on DargonZine comes from DargonZine itself. Furthermore, this article was deleted once before with no contestation. Unless it is written about by reliable outside source with no ties to the publication, it would appear to be NN to anyone not connected with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronzevine (talk • contribs) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I didn't belong to DargonZine and submitted this article then it would be ok? That seems like a strange argument. Besides, most Internet entities don't get written about in the mainstream press. I would propose that a group that has been around for 24 years and transitioned from pre-internet to internet would be notable. But alas, I guess I'm considered biased in this regard. Dargon2008 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DargonZine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516000043/http://nethistory.dumbentia.com/archive.html to http://nethistory.dumbentia.com/archive.html#fsfnet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs[edit]

The article survived two AfDs but is still tagged for Notability since 2008, and sourcing is extremely poor. Is this worth nominating a 3rd time? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cleaned up the article a bit by removing uncited or poorly cited / dubious material -- there's not much left. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete![edit]

It's patently obvious that the creator of this article created it purely for promotional purposes. The user, Dargon2008, has not made any other edits since June 2008, and so that shows that the account was made specifically for that purpose. If he or she had not created this article, it would not exist today!

As for some of the things mentioned in the AFD discussiosn like having an ISSN number and being archived elsewhere? Rubbish. Anyone can request an ISSN and it will be given free of charge, so that's not any great achivement. And as for being archived, other websites like Totse and Skepticfiles have vacuumed up their back issues so as to have content for their own selves and purposes. Just because the site owners of DargonZine have paid for decades to have an online presense, is not evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpbrood (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]