Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raze (magazine)

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 redirect to Newsfield#Raze. Redirecting seems to be clear consensus here, particularly now that a lot of the content has been merged. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raze (magazine)

[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)

Have merged some content into Newsfield, recommend delete and redirect to Newsfield. Article fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Govvy. I checked JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, and Google Books and could find no RS about the magazine, which only existed for 12 months. Article currently lacks any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Does not pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom's rationale here. Nomader (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and redirect. When content is merged, the article history must be kept for attribution. Generally don't need discussions like this: Be bold and redirect when finished with the merge. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really is no point of a merge-hist, that seems completely unnecessary in this situation. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (I assume Czar meant Speedy Redirect, since Keep and redirect would be contradictory). Sourcing situation is as above, and it seems a reasonable redirect target, if material has already been transferred. BE BOLD is one option, but it is not unreasonable for eds to decide to do it this way if unsure about it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2018 (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.