Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecrans d'Afrique


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ecrans d'Afrique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong, but I could not verify the notability of this journal. It has been tagged for notability for over six years (a prod was removed in 2010); no one has yet verified that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The length of time for which this has been tagged for notability is immaterial. James500 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources include, in particular, this,this, this, this and Schmidt, Nancy J. "Special Issues of Periodicals on African Film." African Studies Review 40.01 (1997): 113-119. James500 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This contains a detailed annotated bibliography which includes many of the articles from the journal. As does this. James500 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't tried to cite every source available. James500 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - the nominator's hopes have been realised, per James500. Nicely done.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources found by James500 are just simple in-passing mentions. No in-depth coverage, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Total nonsense. An extensive annotated bibliography is in depth coverage. A passing mention is something like an entry in a phonebook or a citation. James500 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Total nonsense indeed. A few one-line comments on some articles do not constitute an in-depth discussion of the periodical. --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are more than one line and there is more than a few of them. GNG needs to be rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. They also satisfy LISTN. I don't think your argument has any merit. James500 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2014 (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.