Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N64 Gamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. -- Longhair\talk 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N64 Gamer

N64 Gamer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party non-trivial reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context. There are also smacks of original research. Russavia 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. It definitely needs a rewrite. It may be difficult to find sources through Google because the terms 'n64 gamer magazine' are very common. If someone can prove that the magazine is as notable as the article seems to imply, I would happily change my recommendation.Darkcraft 10:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Hard to verify. ffm 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as lack of sources fails to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep The fact that it is one of only two Australian produced magazines about Nintendo systems in the late 90's is noteable enough, the other magazine being Nintendo Magazine System (Australia). The rest being Uk and US imports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atirage (talk • contribs) 11:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\talk 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable magazine. Keb25 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, and the fact argument for keeping by Atirage is not convincing: if two otherwise nn magazines about Nintendo (or pick whatever subject tickles your fancy - Ford, Nokia, music boxes) circulated in Albania with a few dozen copies each - they'd both get articles here because they're the "only"s. Fraid, not. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 25 September 2007 (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.