Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 5 November 2024 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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, although I'm not entirely sure I agree... Robdurbar 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kafenio

Kafenio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not demonstrate notability of subject or provide documentation SteveHopson 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Which would then include about every other e-zine.
  • Kafenio was the first e-zine about Europe
  • About half the travel e-zines are patterned after it
  • It had the highest readership of all travel zines that ever were on the net
  • Was recommended by Writers Digest as one of the best zines to contribute to 3 years in a row mostly due to readership and notability.
• if those are not notable facts I wonder what is.

  Because most of the documentation available is only on the net I decided to write an e-mail to the former publisher for information, which as far as I learned is a standard way of research. If needed I can produce these e-mails.

  The question I have is if this is really about Kafenio, or, if Kafenio is removed, SteveHopson is right about the lack of notability of Roberta Beach Jacobson below.

  Rough 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Unsupported assertions of "notable facts" aren't what are needed. What are needed are cited sources to demonstrate that this subject satisfies the WP:WEB criteria. If your only sources are direct interviews of the former publisher, then you have performed original research, which is forbidden here. It's a standard way to research things, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish the results. The places to publish the results of your primary research are books, journal articles, magazine features, your own web site, and the like. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, not a primary source. Uncle G 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, took out all that came only from Alf Meier, rest can be found on the net. Rough 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Article is now stubbed to what can be proven on the web, but as most of the pages it refers to have not been updated in years (some of them in four years), which means that they will be of the web soon and we are back were we started this morning. 85.74.99.74 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep just found this article googling for material on kafenio. it may not look important 4 years off, but in its day it had a big readership. for me much more important: it gave many young writers a chance to get published because alf did all he could to recommend us to other publishers. 198.172.203.235 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep: if sources for the assertions that "Kafenio was the first e-zine about Europe" and "It had the highest readership of all travel zines that ever were on the net" (above) are cited. 69.140.173.15 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for reason explained above Rough 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I still miss it 207.195.254.11 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kafenio was a pioneer e-zine project, primarily due to design and fomat (in the old days of dial-up). To its credit, it had an ISSN and editors paid writers (on acceptance), a rarity in those years. This entry should remain. In no way can the Kafenio entry be seen as promotional in nature, since it has ceased publication.Youtrue 00:53, 28 November 2006 (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.