Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Brain

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. This AfD is a disaster on wheels and should be linked as an example at WP:TLDR. That said, I have read it through, twice in detail and skimmed a third time. Discounting at least one keep as very possibly a sock and the argument being outside PAG it is clear that there is nothing close to a consensus to keep. While the discussion appeared to be trending towards deletion I am not satisfied that a sufficient consensus to that end has been established. I very rarely relist discussions more than twice and this one has already become far too unwieldy. If someone chooses to renominate this I would encourage a notice be posted at the top of the AfD reminding editors to keep their comments on topic, cite WP:PAG where possible, do not keep repeating points already made, and for the love of G--, BE BRIEF. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Electric Brain

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Electric Brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fairly obscure UK video game magazine from 1989 to 1993. Fails WP:GNG. Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Week keep-it might need more sources I believe or more info. It might be worth a look or a redirect to something else if not. (Though I wouldn't be opposed to delete either). Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC), changed to delete-unless if good redirect can be found. Just might not be notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Changing back to keep as there are sources. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It currently has zero RS. One is just the ISSN page listing, and the other is a fan site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I meant if it can find sources. On another note-it's not even on the List of video game magazines (To be fair it only lists ones with articles though), I might just change this to delete upon looking further. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can only find fansites and forums. And considering it's obscurity and short run, that's likely all you'll find. Magazines themselves often don't get talked about. That's why most of these old mags should be seen as sources rather than subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually changing my vote to delete, unless if someone can find a place it can be redirected.Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the Electric Brain page, I own a few issues myself and thought it was worthy of an article. So I took some time to do some research to get some information. I'll happily do more hunting and editing if required. As well as my own collection of issues for reference, I tracked down the publisher (who now runs an advertising agency), tracked down owners of other issues to confirm certain details, and more besides. I've taken this opportunity to expand the article with more references and links to other wiki articles and have added it to the List of video game magazines, both of which address some of your concerns @Harizotoh9 and @Wgolf. I vote keep, obviously, with my reasoning being that the magazine covered very popular systems, has good editorial/reviews/artwork/discussion, and had a run of 35 issues which is more than many other magazines featured in the List of video game magazines (over double in some cases). Examples: Amiga Force (16 issues), Amtix (18 issues), Atari Age (11 issues) and those are just from the letter A. Case in point, I'd never heard of Amtix but I'm happy to have read about it now and learnt some new things. Thanks for your consideration! Mattsephton (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just noticing it doesn't have coverage in third party sources. I have noticed myself that many gaming mags are likely not notable and probably should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher pages. I'll have to go through them and I'm putting that off right now. I just decided to nominate this one and GameGo! seemed to be the most blatant, as they were super obscure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion I have addressed: short run (not true in comparison to some others), obscure (not if you talk to somebody who was around in the UK at the time, see videos reference), no believable source (there are scans available, publisher still exists, advertisers still exist), lack of sources/references (I have added more, plus wiki cross-references), not in list of video game magazines (it now is). What are your current thoughts? (GameGO! as one issue and a single PDF should go, I concur) Mattsephton (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I vote keep, on the basis that it had a run of at least 35 issues that I know of, and I own all the issues. The magazine was produced at a time when there was poor coverage of console systems and games within the mainstream magazines and so there is a history of games reviews that don't exist in printed form elsewhere. The magazine is of high interest to collectors, in the same way that a rare video game would be sought after. I would be happy to contribute value that helps this magazine earn it's placeUchet67 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Uchet67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It doesn't matter if it' interest to collectors or not, what matters is if it passes WP:GNG by having third party coverage. Which it lacks. It's of interest to niche audiences. Thus it should not be on WP. If you want to create a fan wiki for lost magazines or gamer mags, then that content can go there. But not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I vote keep because the current video games climate for historic preservation covers not only ‘retro’ video game files, but all other media as well. Many publications/fanzines have already been lost, either through original servers shutting down, fan sites being forgotten or just lack of knowledge leading to disinformation.

The more popular video game systems have many different avenues of preservation. Lesser known systems such as the humble PC-Engine need as much information available as possible, especially if not known about/available in many countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVBuk (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — PVBuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, literally all that matters is sources. Does it have any? It doesn't. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment-thanks to the new info, I want to change my vote back to keep like I had originally. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What "new info"? There have been zero WP:RS posted showing notability of this magazine. That is ALL that matters. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - There seems to be some confusion over this debate. A lot of people are commenting why they think that this topic is important, but the only issue that matters is how much this magazine has been covered in third party reliable sources. Topics can be important to niche groups, while not being notable enough for Wikipedia. This is where fan projects, fan wikis, and other things come into play. This is a fine topic for one of those, just not here. Let's examine the sources for this page:

• 1. Videogameden. - Nice website, but it's not a WP:RS. Fan site.
• 2. "Electric Brain Magazine". Archive.org - Citing the magazine itself. Not proof of notability.
• 3. anime-nostalgia-facility.blogspot.com - Fan blog.
• 4. portal.issn.org - Just the ISSN listing, which lists literally everything. Not proof of notability.
• 5. youtube.com/watch?v=7CcSDASu1iA - Video with 68 views. Self published and not RS.
• 6. magazinesfromthepast.fandom.com - Fan Wiki
• 7. neogaf.com - Thread on a fan forum.
• 8. digitiser2000.com/ - Fan blog.

Conclusion: Not a single RS has been found to demonstrate the notability of this magazine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just educated myself and read the page about WP:RS, and now that I am aware of what they are I disagree with your appraisal. Also, Notability is a different ask than that of Reliable Sources so I am keen to not confuse those two. Definition of source, the piece of work itself (the magazine) which we have scans and physical copies of. The creator of the work (we know about the staff, some still around and contactable), the publisher (they are still around, I am in contact with them). Definition of published media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist (both of these are true for Electric Brain). I just added many more sources from scans of old printed magazines, where it was mentioned (as PC Engine Fanatics) in The Games Machine, in New Computer Express and others (as Console Ma'zine or Console Magazine), and mentioned (as Electric Brain) in N-Force all reliable, verifiable, published sources of years gone by. Age matters I feel this is the main problem we have, this magazine was 25 years ago, pre-internet - written letters - fanzines - pen pals - shopping with your gran on a Saturday, so finding information about it is slower and more difficult than I would like. I would also like to ask for understanding that the article is being edited frequently, as more information comes to light. It is not a dead article that has been sat unedited and unloved on Wikipedia. About your appraisal of 8 sources (there are now more than double that)

6 - is an trusted archive of staff lists of magazines.

8 - is the current presence of Digitiser, the advertiser on the back of EB issues 33 through 35, you can read at the reference link a story of how they had to pay "real money" to advertise in Electric Brain.

Right now, there are a bunch of votes to keep, and your delete vote. I'll continue to edit and add to the article as I have been. Hopefully the newly uncovered printed sources are enough for you to reverse your delete vote? Mattsephton (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You've added more citations, but it's the same pattern: not a single RS among them. More forum posts, fan blogs, and trivial references. Also, these debate discussions are not votes, but attempts to find a consensus through reference to Wikipedia policy. Unless RS can be found, this magazine fails WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that there are no RS. That's all I'll say on the mater, good day to you. Would like to request WP:SK Mattsephton (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem very confused about WP:GNG and WP:RS. Super Play is a RS, and it has one profile on GAP, the successor magazine. And I believe it did a profile on Electric Brain as well. However, these two short profiles are not enough to establish notability. The rest of the references are trivial or not reliable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel you're missing the point. The point about Super Play 23 is that, whilst mentioning GAP, they give a brief history of Electric Brain and its perceived importance and weight in the UK video game industry/scene at the time. Please be open to new information that is added to the article, as it is already quite different to what it was when you added the AFD. Recently I added reference to The British Library's holdings of Electric Brain. Mattsephton (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Article reads like a CV and doesn't explain why this fanzine is notable in the first place. Excessive linking to other articles therein doesn't change that, nor does a staff writer having moved on to write for other video game publications. Any attempt to establish notability is steeped in puffery ("Possibly the biggest coup..."), unsourced namedropping (John Fardell) or merely "being mentioned". Citations are either nonviable (a wiki, blogs, YouTube, an online forum) or primary (other video game mags and related sites), and a Google search under "Electric Brain magazine" came up empty. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Nom. I would like to see a HEY (I almost refrained) but don't see it. There does not seem to be significant, in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. @Mattsephton: -- with all due respect you might want to restudy on sources including "significant coverage", Wikipedia:Party and person and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources and hope to get a video magazine genre fan for a closer. A source that is totally acceptable for content may not be acceptable at all towards notability and this is what I see. I like the layout of the article but there are some problems.
  • 1)- The source assessment above is correct and the additions do appear to follow suit.
  • 2)- The clear lack of reliable sources means this has to be considered from a fan base point of view as "but we are fans and like it".
  • 3)- Consensus arrived by not voting is not generally the same as a head count. A plus would be a favorable closer that might agree with the "climate for historic preservation" part or give extra consideration to the "preferences of the participants". If that is not considered then a collection of lessor references (multiple insignificant sources) might be considered collectively.

Please note: WP:Notability (being "Worthy of note) is determined by sources. Reasoning of "climate for historic preservation", it had "a run of at least 35 issues", "The magazine is of high interest to collectors", and my personal favorite "keep as there are sources" (any might just do) are secondary to availability of reliable independent sourcing. The main issue is that "IF" the article survives this AFD it may still be in danger of being nominated again unless it can be properly sourced.

Second note: A negative is that one editor has a total of one contribution and another has a total of four. This will only bring suspicion as both also have similar styles of !voting and very likely be discounted. The result is actually one !vote stating there are sufficient sources and three from established editors (one including a review of sources) stating notability is lacking. If this goes against a keep maybe it can be requested to userfy or redirect somewhere? Otr500 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In terms of third party reliable sources, they have a short overview of GAP and Electric Brain magazines in Super Play magazine that's only three short paragraphs. That's a start, but a single tiny article is nowhere near enough to establish notability. They need significant coverage. The other references to game mags are simply pointing to short listings that mention that the magazine is available for purchase. These aren't articles, rather these are just listings and short ads. That's a MASSIVE stretch. Considering this was a tiny fanzine which only part way through the run got a publisher and transitioned into a more standard game magazine, this should not be shocking. Fanzines by their nature are pretty under-ground. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, very useful discussion. John Fardell is listed in the staff credits of all currently available scanned issues, linked from the page. But I'll add that as a citation so that interested parties can easily view the reference. Mattsephton (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: would appreciate your thoughts on whether you think this article is closer to WP:HEY after new sources, refinements over the past couple of weeks and reference to WP:DEFUNCTNEWS? Thanks Mattsephton (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:DEFUNCTNEWS as there are elements of all appraisals offered so far that I disagree with as I continue to uncover references and sources. One final point: to say that Electric Brain was a tiny publication, without any sources, references or citations to back that up is quite ironic, given the discussion in this AfD. I'll reiterate that a run of 35 issues, over 3 years, in the early 1990s, pre-internet when friendships were forged in pen and ink by posted letters, for a topic such as videogames, was really quite something. You'd have loved it if you were there to witness it. Mattsephton (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note: This is a duplicate "keep" !vote. Please see: "I vote keep" at 11:26 am, 25 April 2019 above. Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I also politely ask why, say, Super Play is not AfD despite having only 3 references? Mattsephton (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Short version is: maybe it should?

Long version: I've been actually thinking that a large chunk of gaming mags aren't notable, and should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher page. If you were to mass throw them all into AFD, I think maybe no more than 50% would survive. Thing is though, some of them are notable, and it's difficult at first glance to see which are notable and which aren't since they all have low amount of sources. It would take some time to research and to sort through them, and that's a bit of a pain and I have enough on my plate. Instead, I sent what I felt was the most obvious low hanging fruit, this and GameGO! to AFD, since I felt it was pretty uncontroversial. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Super Play is hanging on by a thread because despite the lousy sourcing in the article itself, the magazine got a bit of viable third-party publicity upon their brief 2017 revival, and Kotaku used a graphic from one issue for a 2012 feature about the high prices of SNES games. That's pretty much it, but if you want to compare the two, it's miles ahead of Electric Brain in terms of third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Even If it wasn’t ahead that would be a case for deleting Super Play and not a case for keeping this article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Beemer69: for your answer. @Harizotoh9: your reply was not a useful answer to my question as it was not specific to Super Play. @64.229.166.98: I'm aware of that, I never suggested such, I just wanted a rock solid description of why Super Play is OK. So I've just added a citation to a Nintendo Life feature on the Electric Brain's 1992-published interview with Shigeru Miyamoto. Mattsephton (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The NL article brings it to two single articles, so that's still not enough. A tiny Super Play article, and a NL article mostly focusing on Shiggy. Also, reading the comments in the NL page, it says the interview was taken from Famitsu, and that Electric Brain merely translated it without giving credit. Which explains why some minor fanzine has an interview with someone like him. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Electric Brain "merely" translated it? Really? Can I reiterate that this was 1992, 20 years before the next time this interview was to be seen in English, and 24 years before the interview was seen in full in English. And this is an interview that has - this very month - been reprinted by Famitsu in Japan as one of the most important interviews of the last 30 years (their words). To trivialise this fact shows a fair amount of disrespect, so I'd like to ask again if you could be a bit more open minded. Thank you. Also, I've mentioned many times that the raison d'être of Electric Brain and its contemporaries like Super Play was to bring coverage of the nascent Japanese video game industry to the distant shores of the United Kingdom in a time where such information was not easily available. As to the credit, I don't know. All I can say with certainty is that Electric Brain give credit in all their other interviews (such as with the Yuzo Koshiro Interview featured in issue 24, watch this space). So it may have been a slip up, or maybe not. But I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, given that this all happened more than a lifetime ago for some people. Finally, your repeated, unsubstantiated statements such as "some minor fanzine" make it sound like you have a vendetta against this publication for some reason. Mattsephton (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No one has a "vendetta" against this magazine. Rather, you're betting all your horses and then some on the longevity of a single interview to prove the article's notablility, which is still lacking due to no reliable sources, including those newly added. I did some trimming because what does posting the same interview three times in a single paragraph prove? Furthermore, one of the recently added links to the interview mentioned you by name. That doesn't help the cause. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Correction, both Nintendo Life and Super Play are WP:RS for video games. The issue is that these are brief and tiny articles and don't amount to substantial coverage. One tiny Super Play article, and one NL article that spends one sentence on the fanzine are not significant coverage. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Beemer69: I don't see any reason to make this discussion personal - this is about the Electric Brain article, not me, or any others discussing the AfD. Thanks again for your editing, it was appreciated. The interview was my recent focus and as new information and sources come to light in the near future I'll continue to add to the article with more sources. Mattsephton (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be well sourced and notable given the age. If this magazine had run from 2013-2017 instead of 89-93, no doubt there would many more online sources and we probably wouldn't be having this debate. ed g2s • talk 15:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Check the page and sources. The author is WP:REFBOMBing the page, adding refs for superficial and trivial mentions. A lot of the page is fluff and padding. In terms of sources that actually mention Electric Brain, there's just Super Play and Nintendo Life. That's way too little and brief. There's also no exception to notability for old print sources. There is nothing stopping gaming magazines from talking about this fanzine, and indeed Super Play did just that. Why didn't others? Remember, this was an underground fanzine with low readership and was made via photocopying. Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores.

Let's take a look for example at NL's coverage of Electric Brain vs Super Play. Superplay got a 3 page retrospective going over its history, while Electric Brain got one news article that has 1 sentence devoted to the fanzine. The sort of sources we're looking for are more like NL's in depth retrospective. Are there any more sources of that kind of in depth coverage for this magazine? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores."(sic) is demonstrably incorrect/false: check the British Library reference.

You say "low readership" but offer no proof. If you're aware of circulation numbers please add them to the article.

"And was made via photocopying" is not wholly true, particularly when talking about Electric Brain and not any of its earlier incarnations. We have the publisher and ISSN for part of the run.

I'm adding references only for things that need citations - no more and, obviously, no less.

Magazines don't generally go around talking about their competitors so the fact Super Play even mentioned Electric Brain at all is an oddity.

You demand sources. I add them. Then you say they are not good enough? That's your personal opinion, I disagree with that vehemently.

Super Play received a 3 page feature at the time it had a revival issue printed. Before that it had much less coverage, naturally. Mattsephton (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - the magazine does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL: made no significant impact in its field, did not receive a notable award or honor at a national or international level, was not the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, and has not had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works - therefore, unambiguous delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Having spent a large proportion of my life in the field of video games and video game writing, I'd argue that without Electric Brain, and in particular its staff writer Jason Brookes, Super Play would not have been as successful and influential as it was, nor made the lasting impact that it did. In this regard, Electric Brain could be considered a prototype for Jason Brookes' later input into Super Play. That would be significant impact in my opinion.

Given that digital versions of Electric Brain are only now becoming available, new scans are uploaded frequently, citations will surely come and the Nintendo Life feature is the first example of this. The same would be expected of other recently introduced publications or any new information.

As WP:NPERIODICAL states "Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources" which I think is a good summary of this issue. Especially regarding the "Non-contemporary periodicals" clause WP:DEFUNCTNEWS. Mattsephton (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Researching obscure fanzines and gaming history can be a laudable goal, but that's not the goal of Wikipedia. This is what fansites, and fan wikis are for. This is niche info. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying that, over and over. It makes no sense and shows real lack of understanding of what this article is even about. It's not obscure and it's a magazine with an ISSN. If you're not from the UK, you might not understand this, that's fine. Perhaps you had not even been born when his magazine was printed, that's also fine. But to say this doesn't belong on Wikipedia without addressing the comment you're replying to is really not adding anything useful to this discussion. I hear your point, no need to keep restating it. It would be more productive for you to address the comment you're replying to. Mattsephton (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For all of the blue-in-the-face insistence that EB is so influential like it's some poor man's EGM, at the end of the day it's a fanzine that had a short shelf life due to, well, low readership. There's next to no third-party coverage on just a Google search alone, and pretty much anything can be added to archive.org. The Nintendo Life piece with Jason Brookes cited in the article makes no mention of Electric Brain at all, so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate the two. The writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB, which was more or less a stepping stone. Gaming fanzines advertising in other gaming magazines also means jack in terms of notability because that was the norm in the pre-internet days. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites.

1. "fanzine"? it was a printed, retail magazine with ISSN record, at least for the part of its run this article is about.

2. "short shelf life"? it ran for 35 issues over 4 calendar years. this is not short.

3. "low readership"? . if you are aware of circulation numbers, please add them to the article.

4. "so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate [to Super Play]" if they've read the preceding sentence in this article before they follow the reference that will know exactly the relationship.

5. "writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB"? You have no proof of this. I read it as implied in the Super Play retrospective feature.

6. "like it's some poor man's EGM"? I've made no reference to EGM, and given that I'm not from the USA I have never read an issue of that publication so have no idea about it other than to have heard its name. Similarly, most people from the USA will have never heard or read an issue of Electric Brain at the time it was printed and in circulation. Finally, when you are deleting things from the article, or adding reliable sources or peacock please note the specific references or words that are problematic so they're easy to locate and resolve. Mattsephton (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mattsephton: There has been a reprieve. Please use this time to possibly neutrally advertise at relevant places as this relisting is "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". Above you curtly dismissed an editors comments and I would refrain from doing that. Also, you use the wording "Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites". All consensus building hinges on the "opinions" of the editors giving comments hopefully based on policies, guidelines, and even community backed essays, so you disagreeing might not mean an editor has "intent to deceive".

There are at least two editors that edit in the video gaming field. I take this into account when considering comments with substance according to the "rules" (interpretation) when I am reviewing. I don't consider ANY comments that include Appears to be well sourced, even or especially, if offered by an admin, and give little thought to non-policy based SPA comments. Those types of comments are directly counter to what not to state in an AFD and shows what I consider to be trivial comments. Some of us take the time to check individual links as apposed to "counting sources" so as long as I see reviews in earnest I will be swayed more by those editors comments. The one editor you summarily dismissed took the time to list (advertise) the discussion and it has been relisted twice. This means there is extreme fairness going on so PLEASE always assume good faith and present civility.

I started my "gaming" on a Commodore (64 and 128) and when I went into PC's I progressed from the 8088, 80286, 80386, and up. My first "powerful" PC had an amazingly fast turbo speed button of 12 Mhz. I still have gaming consoles and games so could not be considered against the gaming world. I would offer the same about those editors that work in the subject area especially when you cursor over their user name and it is prominent they do so and they are established editors.

I am somewhat perplexed concerning your comments about WP:DEFUNCTNEWS. You stated, "Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources", and I read, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Verifiability.". I am all about history and certainly obtaining knowledge so the "defunct" part to me would be historical value.

When or if you find a source that might signify notability share it here for opinions instead of just "adding it" and then requesting others to re-review. This will lesson the fact that an editor will have to view diff's to see the edit and give a chance for input (reliability) that will stop assertions of refbombing. Just some thoughts.

If there is not significant coverage in reliable independent sources advancing notability then I will submit that in approximately 7 more days the result will still swing to delete. Any bias in editors from the U.S., possibly caused by an inability to find sourcing, can be overcome by someone providing such sources. Otr500 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the level headed, neautrally-positioned discussion.

My WP:DEFUNCTNEWS quote was from the top of that page, section titled This page in a nutshell.

I will add the next source I find here for discussion as you recommend; we appear to be roughly the same age and have the same values so I appreciate your advice and recommendations on this.

My aim here is to point out any AfD discussion that is not based on citable fact, and I will continue to do so.

Aside: I thought this was the 3rd relist (which as I'm sure you know is not advised) but perhaps it is only the 2nd relist and the original AfD does not count towards the relist tally? This is my first AfD so... I really don't know which it is. Mattsephton (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, please quit removing the article tags atop the page until these issues have been explicitly addressed. Just one example of puffery in the article is, "Electric Brain also featured content that other magazines would shy away from." The citation? Not an independent third-party source, but the magazine. It's not viable information, just opinion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting a specific example - I've addressed it. In the past I also addressed specific citation links that you had issue with and took the time to mark individually. I'll address every specific example that is raised. Globally tagging a page isn't much help as I'm sure you can understand. Cheers! Mattsephton (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

How about a compromise @Beemer69: @Harizotoh9:, let's discuss the issues you both feel need to be tagged on the page, an increasing number with every back and forth, rather than tagging without talking about them? Let's work together to make this article better rather than against each other? Until then I have issued warnings for vandalism as I consider successive, increased tagging of the page an attempt to influence the outcome of this AfD. Mattsephton (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply: @Mattsephton: I have been involved in more than a few AFD's. If you are around my age then welcome to "old[er] age". My only complaint is that I am living in my "age of retiring gunslinger" period. I strive to be "nicer" in a growing older age but sometimes this "being nice" is confused with or perceived as a weakness. That is generally a fundamental error as I am neither weak nor timid if provoked so continually must check myself. I was born before the first artificial satellite was launched and when commercial jet liners were in their infancy. Considering the cool cars of the era at least the round wheel was invented.

WP:DEFUNCTNEWS is a section and particular subject "Non-contemporary periodicals". The quote you used is actually pretty clear: "Many periodicals are notably influential". While not named this was mentioned by user Harizotoh9 at the beginning of the AFD, "Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source.", and this is echoed by, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.", This clearly defines a difference between "notability" and "notably influential". Hopefully some acceptable in-dept coverage can be located.

It is a good idea to address issues (perceived or not) resulting in a tag before removal especially if there is an accurate edit summary or talk page mention. Those that perform maintenance can get riled up if an editor just arbitrarily removes tags and can get an admin involved. I do remove what I consider vague and long term (career) tags but leave an edit summary that if the issues do not seem to be resolved please be more specific. Otr500 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Old cars are the coolest cars, no doubt about it. My first car was a 1972 FIAT 500, marginally older than myself. Of course I bought it long after it was new, at a time it was already considered vintage. Cheaper road tax! Anyway, I digress. As for the tags, I have not been arbitrarily removing them, but rather addressing specific tags and marked targets in the body contents. Once all of these had been addressed I removed the tags, only to see the tags, plus more new ones, were added back without any further information. This seems arbitrary and unfair. I have left more detailed edit summaries for the most recent edits because of this. A little bird told me a recent book quoted Electric Brain so I'm trying to get hold of a copy. Exciting! Mattsephton (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I've gone through all the citations, and they're all either unreliable, trivial coverage, or both. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. - MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  Any thoughts on how this applies to the Non-contemporary periodicals section of WP:DEFUNCTNEWS? Mattsephton (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  It hasn't been widely written about, as that section suggests should be considered. Generally, topic specific notability guides don't override the general notability guideline anyway. Without good sources to start from there is no way to write a policy compliant article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Mattsephton: That is why I hope you find the book you mentioned. I didn't look to see but some of you belong to a Project and maybe someone else there knows, has access, or can help. When I dig a little deeper on something and I cannot find anything I have to go with (and many other likely also) that it needs proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

  Still waiting for the book to arrive. I'm also trying to track down archive TV footage of a feature about Electric Brain that was aired on Central News in the UK at the time the magazine was published by Space City. Staff members Onn and Dan were featured. Mattsephton (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for now. The WP:VGSE drags up nothing, so today's sources are not writing about the magazine. A review of Gbooks indicates a similar dearth. The sources presently on the page do not meet the requirements to pass the WP:GNG. No prejudice to later recreation if sources are later identified to meet the GNG. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2019 (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.