Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable wiki with no obvious reliable sources anywhere. The page seems to be a combination of WP:G11 or WP:G10 depending on which iteration you look at. I chose G10, but realise this is more fitting the spirit of the policy rather than the letter, and would defer to AfD if challenged. That has now happened, so I'm coming here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Literally, get rid of this thing: three sources, each a passing mention. Fails WP:NWEB. ——SerialNumber54129 11:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a personal blog, but not even a good one. Troll magnet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article just does not die. Its a WP:NWEB violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. No place for such article in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's at least four. The article mentions Niedzviecki 2011. That did not exist at the time of the 2nd AFD discussion.
- Niedzviecki, Hal (2011-07-29). "Zine Wiki and the great indie cultural reservoir". Broken Pencil. No. 84.
Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says "Other media sponsors of ZineWiki include Broken Pencil...." so that's not really an independent enough source that can show notability. It doesn't even explain what a zine is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "To write with a broken pencil is pointless." The Broken Pencil website even talks about the results of the prior AfDs. Anyway, it can now be shown that no independent reliable sources exist that mention ZineWiki in depth. Hence, the article should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference is too narrow. Barca (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obvious non-notable open-source online wiki. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and close I am surprised it had passed two AFDs before, very clearly non notable Wiki, lacks RS. Meeanaya (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable site. Not enough sources. Must be deleted. Agree with all above! -- User:Vermont (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not well sourced and notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2019 (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.