FYI, the reason I changed it to "some of the earliest interviews" was because "first" wasn't factually correct with at least the A-Frames and Spits, my old rag Tablet ran interviews with them earlier the the H.A. ones. dan10things 16:10, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
I'm nominating this for deletion. For one thing, as Dan noted above, they aren't factually correct. For another, I think they are just using Zine Wiki for advertising space. InvisibleFriend 21:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)
advertising space? please. The zine has been done for two years. Nominating this for deletion!?!? Now that's pretty funny, mr. Hall Monitor. The Spits and A-Frames told us they hadn't had published interviews, so I guess they must have been mistaken, not us.
- The presumption that your magazine is using Zine Wiki comes from the fact that you refer to it as a magazine, not as a zine. Magazines generally have budgets and staff and offices; all the things that zines do not have. It's generally assumed that such magazines could afford to publicise themselves in a larger forum, whereas zines have limited options; Zine Wiki is one of the few options available to them. If, in fact, your magazine is self published without the aid of a budget, a paid staff, or an office; if, in fact, your magazine is actually a zine then you should make this clear in your article. If this isn't the case, then you should make clear what relation to zines your magazine has; does it review zines? are your writers former, or present, zine editors? or anything that would be of interest to readers who come to Zine Wiki not to be informed about magazines, but to read about zines. InvisibleFriend 05:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)