Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Brain (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ultimately this discussion boils down to the very simple question of whether there is sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The two sources which were at the forefront of the discussion were the Nintendo Life and Super Play articles, which as User:FOARP and User:David Fuchs demonstrated, do not provide the level of coverage required to establish notability. The !votes in favour of keeping the article argued primarily that the lack of sources was not an issue (or rather, was to be expected) due to the age of the publication, citing the essay WP:NMAG. However, this essay does not trump the notability policy, which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. The consensus, as I interpret it, is that the few sources available do not represent this level of coverage, and consequently that the article does not – in its current state – meet the requirements for inclusion.Yunshui 雲 水 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Electric Brain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines for periodicals, as it has not received significant coverage from a reliable source. The vast majority of the sources are random blogs and archived magazines. Also, why is this article a good article nominee? &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 06:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * delete - fails WP:GNG. Might be an ok source to use, but not notable for an article. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per . This was in the pre-web era. Its web footprint is thus small. The quality of the magazine far exceeded the scale of its distribution, so it was never widespread. However small and obscure doesn't mean non-notable. When, a decade later, "Do you remember Electric Brain? (and, to be fair, Super Play)" was a shibboleth within the Future offices for "Are you really an old-school gamer?", then that's having had the sort of long-term, mythic influence which is the hallmark of a fanzine worth recording. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - The issue here is this is a WP:DEFUNCTNEWS publication, so the essay-level criteria of the notability guidelines for periodicals should be applied with caution. Whilst I'm not sure it was as ground-breakingly early as Andy Dingley makes out (1989 was hardly the dawn of the games era for anyone who played 8-bit), it was an early publication and you shouldn't expect support in academic journals or whatever. If a couple of supporting references in RS could be found I could see myself voting keep. Problem is, there ain't none. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not early as a games magazine, my point is that it's pre-web, so it didn't make much of a footprint on the web today, hence easily visible for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there still has to be some RS sourcing... and there isn't FOARP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO the RS are Nintendo Life, Super Play, at least. —Flicky1984 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But they didn't give significant coverage to *the magazine* FOARP (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The article hasn't changed since the original deletion nomination, so I don't know on what grounds this is being relisted. ed g2s &bull; talk 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The close wasn't Keep, it was no-consensus. The grounds for deletion are the same as before (fails WP:GNG) but there will inevitably be different editors up in the mix so we can't assume the same result will occur, and though I don't want this article to be deleted I can't see any way of keeping it given the lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per and . Justification being WP:DEFUNCTNEWS and WP:NPERIODICAL (Non-contemporary periodicals). Reading the page, the magazine has ties with notable people, publications and organisations, had a longer run than many of its contemporaries, heavily influenced Super Play ( see the cites in the article about how the Electric Brain coverage of Japanese-import-gaming was a bug influence, resulting in poaching of Jason Brookes), and was home to the first English translation of a now historically significant interview with Shigeru Miyamoto. Anyway I think that's more than enough to warrant a keep. The only things against this magazine I can think of is that it had regional distribution in the UK so anybody from elsewhere likely didn't encounter it at the time, or since, and of course the fact that it was pre-internet and so it has a small footprint online. Neither of these would mean a delete for me. I'd encourage anybody reading this to also read the previous AFD from where I gleaned this information. Over the course of the first AfD the article was improved substantially, so I'm at a loss as to why this has been relisted.  —Flicky1984 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But we still need RS coverage *of the magazine* to pass WP:GNG, which we don't have. We have listings in various archives, blogs, reprints of articles etc. I too am motivated to keep this article - but not to the point of ignoring the need to have RS WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading is that this situation is more nuanced. A quick refresher shows we have at least 2 RS in SuperPlay and Nintendo Life, plus WP:DEFUNCTNEWS and WP:NPERIODICAL (Non-contemporary periodicals), as well as the ISSN and the holdings at the British Library. I’d also say that we have WP:NOTTEMPORARY in that the publication received significant coverage at the time of its run, shown in the various historic magazine scans, and - for me - that is enough for WP:SIGCOV and would seem to negate your concerns. —Flicky1984 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that is significant coverage *of the magazine*, The only article on Nintendo Life that even mentions Electric Brain is their re-print of the Shigeru Miyamoto interview which simply mentions that it was from Electric Brain without discussing the magazine any further, although in reality this was just a Famitsu article that Electric Brain had translated (and so not really an indication of notability). The Superplay article is not about Electric Brain, and gives it only the briefest mention: "Readers may remember Onn Lee's previous fanzine, Electric Brain, which acheived national newsstand circulation after being bough out by a company called Space City Communications, SCC went into liquidation 3 issues later alas, but we're happy to see that Onn hasn't lost his enthusiasm for the games scene" (see page 19 here). It is very hard to see this one-sentence mention as significant coverage of the subject. At most this is simply evidence that Electric Brain existed, not that it was notable, and existence does not prove notability. The ISSN and the British Library holdings are also not an indication of publicity because they hold many records that are not, by themselves, notable. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't agree the sourcing provided meets WP:SIGCOV. To discuss the sources brought up above, the Nintendo Life article is talking about Super Play, so the subject in question is Super Play, not Electric Brain; the article does not appear to mention Electric Brain at all, if I'm not mistaken. The claim Electric Brain was the final name for the multi-platform magazine, and with it came a publisher and high street distribution is cited to the ISSN portal, which does not support the assertion made. I find the reference to Electric Brain in Super Play #23 pretty minor (it's mostly talking about Onn Lee and the new magazine). Weak references to assert its notability includes random "wanted" ads from a user-submitted part of other magazines. WP:DEFUNCTNEWS is an essay and has no power to invoke here, and even then there's been no substantial demonstration of its legacy such an evidence-based keep would require. It's great all these people keep turning up to talk about how important it was, but at present the article doesn't prove it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Props for taking the time to review the sources. Just a few counter points... There are two Nintendo Life cites, each alongside the references they support. The first, cited in reference to Jason Brookes, is about SuperPlay and how they took the Otaku vibe from Electric Brain (EB) by poaching/employing him. The second, cited under Shigeru Miyamoto Interview, is about how EB had the first English translation (by 20+ years fwiw) of a now historically significant interview. The reference in SuperPlay #23 is a very effusive if somewhat short history of EB and its editor, which shows the esteem in which EB was held at the time and IMHO supports WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and, sorry to disagree, I think WP:DEFUNCTNEWS); it also confirms that EB had national circulation which I think is a better reference for that than the ISSN (good point) so I will make that edit. —Flicky1984 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How does being the first EN-language mag to translate an interview that was done by another mag indicate notability? How does an article that mention Jason Brookes (not Electric Brain at all, just a guy who wrote for them) indicate that Electric Brain is notable? How does a one-sentence mention of Electric Brain in an article about something else amount to significant coverage?
 * I get that people want to keep an article about this mag. If someone were to propose my childhood favourite, Crash for deletion, I'd be voting to save it, but there just isn't enough in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources -at least in as much as what I have been able to find and see in the article- to sustain the notability of this article. FOARP (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment in the previous AFD. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 4 August 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.