416:- Zinewiki is a reality. It deserves fair recognition in any general encyclopedia on or off line. It has recognized and celebrated the decades of recent zines - a zine explosion of thousands and thousands of independent writers and artists and desktop publishers who are the major source of quality contemporary writing and art. It celebrates a new art form, zines - that combine bookmaking, writing, publishing, and illustration. It is also representative of the world of independent and small publishers outside of the recent media/art consolidation that has occured in the last few decades. If wikipedia celebrates the hack commercial writers of the mainstream publishers - that are overly promoted - then it should cover the gifted writers outside that commercial promotion. And cover those that celebrate these gifted writers. Zinewiki does. The world of writers it covers is real. It's work is all the more important and valid for becoming the source for the history of so many gifted and neglected writers. It is a recorded history of zines and deserves recognition as a history source as much as any other history source. If writers are covered in wikipedia, then zinesters should be covered. If online sources for writers are covered, then zinewiki should be covered. If zines are covered in wikipedia how can one not cover zinewiki? There seems to be a dangerous challenge of all artists that aren't apart of the handful of corporations that control the mainstream arts (music, film, writing, tv, etc.). This isn't fairness its prejudice in favor of big corporations. As a zinester, I say a strong keep.
220:
college library collections, etc. ZineWiki is definitely very new and is just starting to gain attention outside the zine community, but it attempts to collect all the zine resources around the Web and in print into one complete database, which is essential to documenting
America and the world's small press history and culture. ZineWiki is already the largest online guide to zines, small press publications and zine publishers and it's growing rapidly. The Wiki, like the listing, will be growing in leaps and bounds over the next few years. It seems short-sighted to delete it now because it's relevance is only justified by some Wiki editors in mainstream attention (which it will no doubt get more of in time).
526:- ZineWiki is an attempt to catalog what is in fact a huge subculture. Zines are written and created everyplace-- an authentic expression of American culture; of the American voice. Is Knowledge to give attention only to those who've been blessed and sanctified by a select group of mandarins representing not the American voice, but their own privileged status? The writers mentioned in Zinewiki are MORE genuine, more American, than the John Updikes of the mainstream. I've made this argument in many venues, and will debate the idea anywhere. If Knowledge is to represent a true picture of our times, of more than one cultural stream, than a site like Zinewiki has its place. -King Wenclas.
386:- I would think a more serious subject matter like zines and the small press that spans decades and that is a key element in social movements like punk, riot grrrl, hardcore, as well as the comic and science fiction communities, would hold a little more weight than a TV show, people that talk shit, and people that dress like squirrels. This is the first I've heard of Wikifur, but thanks for adding it in your comments, wow! For me the notability is not that it's a Wiki, it's ZineWiki's content and importance in creating a comprehensive database of information about zines and the small press--something up until now, no one had attempted.
164:(acknowledging I’m the page’s creator) Google searches and Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability on Knowledge. However, even if they were, a site that's only four months old would, of course, have low search results and rankings, as it takes a number of months for Google to update. Also, I looked at your user contributions and you joined Knowledge for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion. It's been your only contribution. How... helpful.
472:- I may not be someone who contributes or edits Knowledge, but I am someone who finds it useful to use. Zinewiki on the other hand, is something that I have edited and contributed to. As someone who doesn't know much about the Wiki world, I figured that this was the same thing - but alas, I suppose not. All that aside, after reading the "notability requirements," Zinewiki does in fact, fit two of the three (according to the requirements, an entry only needs to meet one).
578:- Is Knowledge only for those who have the free time to create or edit its entries? Or does it exist for the online community to use as a powerful reference source, whether they contribute or not? I am a regular Knowledge user, both at home and at on the job (at a library). I'm also someone, yes, very involved in and interested in zines. It's because of that involvement that I can second the validity of Dan10things's comments above. As a user, I do think it is notable.
642:: I'm a little hesitant, on the basis of "notability first, encyclopedia article second." I don't doubt that the Wiki has potential to be a very good resource on an area worth documenting, but the article seems a little premature. I certainly would not have started it at this time, but since it is there, I suspect that we should keep it, since it will probably merit mention soon enough. -
560:- Frankly, I'd be happier if so many of those voting "Keep" were people who actually contribute to Knowledge itself; and if the article, and those supporting its retention, didn't have so much trouble keeping their points of view out of the material. (And frankly, I'm unconvinced that Memory Alpha has a place here either.) The paranoia displayed here by the person calling him or herself
587:
What he means is, this type of debate is really designed for regular wikipedia editors to participate in. Every so often, a debate will attract a lot of new accounts, almost always supporting whatever article is under discussion -- but it doesn't help get a good picture of what the
Knowledge editing
200:
per multiple verified references from reliable sources. The keep is "weak" because all of the sources are zine-related, thus signifying that while the zine community (if such a thing exists) may have picked up on the site, few people outside of this group have heard of it. However, while I am arguing
296:
Knowledge lists several other wikis on a wide variety of topics. ZineWiki is becoming a major repository of information about zines, both historic and current. While one might argue that the zine community is small, in terms of the online world's population or whatever, you could just as easily make
492:
In addition to meeting the criteria, I believe that
Zinewiki represents a large subculture, and is worthy of its own Wiki entry in the same fashion that Memory Alpha (the Star Trek Wiki) has its own entry. Zinewiki is a relatively new entry, and still has plenty of time to grow. It has already been
219:
I edited the listing to drop the POV and added a link to the
Portland Mercury's write up on it. There is definitely a zine community, dating back before the early days of Usenet with alt.zines, multiple yearly zine conventions, zine related books, Factsheet Five, zine libraries, zines included in
185:
First of all, it doesn't take "a number of months" for Google to update. This article was created less than a month ago, yet, after zinewiki.com, it is the first G-hit for "ZineWiki". Second, the nominator may have proposed this article for deletion based on some ulterior motive (or, s/he may not
201:
for this article's existence, I highly dislike that much of the article is about the creators' distaste for
Knowledge. While it's quasi-relevant to the article, it's also highly self-referential of this encyclopedia (which is to be avoided) and slightly POV (which is explicitly disallowed). --
489:). Zinewiki has also been mentioned on numerous blogs and even on some non-english language websites. The coverage on Powell's books also meets the requirement for number three, as Powell's online is an extremely well known website and the content of Zinewiki was used in a review on the site.
447:- There seems to be a lot of perpetrating in the zine world by individuals who seem to be agents for interested parties. Though I don't know zinewiki well I'd surmise that this challenge is a form of disinformation.
341:
658:. All the mentions are trivial or zine-related. The article's creator has admitted a conflict of interest. We cannot give in to a shitstorm of meatpuppets. This website is far from notable.
596:). New users can sometimes make arguments that sway established editors, but in most cases, they just state preferences, which are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
493:
of great interest to people in the zine community (trust me, there is one) and has a potential of being of great interest to people in the small press community.
433:
458:
537:
237:
627:
600:
541:
514:
510:
462:
437:
318:
280:
241:
145:
17:
314:
478:
340:. Merely being a wiki is not a sign of notability, and I have opposed the inclusion of articles here about other wikis (see
87:
82:
276:
91:
141:
688:
74:
36:
687:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
429:
454:
533:
117:
506:
364:. Less notable than Wikifur or Encyclopedia Dramatica that have been deleted and failed deletion review.
477:
Zinewiki meets the first requirement, as it has been covered in such places as The Small Press
Exchange (
425:
417:
310:
233:
561:
450:
297:
the same argument about many of the communities who would use the other wikis listed within
Knowledge.
619:
Per Orange Mike, I dislike the stream of meatpuppets here, but multiple media mentions make this pass
529:
387:
229:
221:
669:
502:
494:
272:
137:
673:
650:
634:
607:
589:
582:
579:
568:
497:
420:
390:
368:
352:
349:
306:
301:
298:
263:
224:
205:
190:
168:
128:
78:
56:
53:
268:
260:
133:
125:
165:
70:
62:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
647:
664:
624:
597:
565:
202:
187:
479:
http://www.smallpressexchange.com/directory/magazines_and_e-zines/zines/zinewiki/details/
482:
659:
620:
593:
361:
337:
49:
108:
121:
643:
486:
186:
have), but no matter what the motive, his/her reasoning is completely valid. --
365:
348:; I don't think it needs to have a full article of its own on Knowledge. --
623:
in my book, and I think any POV issues have been resolved at this point.
588:
community thinks, which is what really matters (Knowledge runs on
681:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
345:
342:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)
104:
100:
96:
483:
http://www.supernaturale.com/glimmer.html?id=612#g612
48:
amongst established editors that this does not meet
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
691:). No further edits should be made to this page.
564:is not a good sign for rational discussion.--
487:http://www.powells.com/review/2006_10_14.html
8:
344:). ZineWiki has an external link from
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
674:22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
651:07:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
635:15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
608:04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
583:03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
569:22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
498:01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
421:17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
391:07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
369:05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
353:04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
302:02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
264:00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
225:00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
206:22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
191:22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
169:22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
129:21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
57:22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
708:
481:), Supernaturale\Glimmer (
52:, so defaulting to keep.
684:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
485:), and Powell's books (
542:few or no other edits
515:few or no other edits
463:few or no other edits
438:few or no other edits
319:few or no other edits
281:few or no other edits
242:few or no other edits
146:few or no other edits
122:alexa rank: 2,910,006
116:non notable website.
558:Reluctant weak keep
544:outside this topic.
517:outside this topic.
465:outside this topic.
440:outside this topic.
321:outside this topic.
283:outside this topic.
244:outside this topic.
148:outside this topic.
672:
545:
518:
466:
441:
322:
284:
245:
149:
699:
686:
668:
632:
605:
527:
500:
448:
423:
304:
266:
227:
131:
118:Google 14,600hit
112:
94:
34:
707:
706:
702:
701:
700:
698:
697:
696:
695:
689:deletion review
682:
628:
601:
594:not a democracy
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
705:
703:
694:
693:
677:
676:
662:is not met. -
653:
637:
613:
612:
611:
610:
572:
571:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
520:
519:
490:
474:
473:
467:
442:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
372:
371:
355:
350:Metropolitan90
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
195:
194:
193:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
114:
113:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
704:
692:
690:
685:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
666:
661:
657:
656:Strong delete
654:
652:
649:
645:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
626:
622:
618:
615:
614:
609:
606:
604:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
574:
573:
570:
567:
563:
559:
556:
543:
539:
535:
531:
525:
522:
521:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
496:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:172.150.43.75
422:
419:
418:172.150.43.75
415:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
392:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
300:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
265:
262:
258:
255:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
223:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
199:
196:
192:
189:
184:
183:
182:
181:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
127:
123:
119:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
683:
680:
663:
655:
639:
629:
616:
602:
575:
562:James Nowlan
557:
540:) has made
523:
513:) has made
469:
461:) has made
451:James Nowlan
444:
436:) has made
413:
383:
357:
333:
317:) has made
293:
279:) has made
256:
240:) has made
216:
197:
166:Alanlastufka
161:
144:) has made
115:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
566:Orange Mike
530:KingWenclas
388:Dan10things
230:Dan10things
222:Dan10things
503:Aaroncynic
495:Aaroncynic
259:per nom.--
203:Kicking222
188:Kicking222
640:Weak keep
590:consensus
198:Weak keep
580:Jerianne
538:contribs
511:contribs
459:contribs
434:contribs
315:contribs
307:Jerianne
299:Jerianne
277:contribs
238:contribs
142:contribs
71:ZineWiki
63:ZineWiki
670:crztalk
592:and is
576:Comment
384:Comment
88:protect
83:history
54:W.marsh
660:WP:WEB
644:Jmabel
621:WP:WEB
362:WP:WEB
358:Delete
338:WP:WEB
334:Delete
257:Delete
92:delete
50:WP:WEB
630:juice
625:Mango
617:Keep.
603:juice
598:Mango
470:Keep.
366:Anomo
294:Keep.
269:Notth
261:Notth
217:Keep.
162:Keep.
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
648:Talk
534:talk
524:Keep
507:talk
455:talk
445:Keep
430:talk
414:Keep
360:per
346:Zine
336:per
311:talk
273:talk
234:talk
138:talk
134:AJMS
126:AJMS
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
665:crz
646:|
536:•
528:—
509:•
501:—
457:•
449:—
432:•
424:—
313:•
305:—
275:•
267:—
236:•
228:—
140:•
132:—
124:.
120:,
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
546:.
532:(
505:(
453:(
428:(
309:(
271:(
232:(
136:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.