Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Secret (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   delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Top Secret (magazine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was prodded with the following rationale: Completely unsourced article. Searches did not turn up anything on any of the search engines. There were some hits on Books, but they appear to be about other magazines with this same name. Was de-prodded with the following comment, "contest deletion - the linked Polish Wikipedia article has some sources that appear prima facie to be independent and reliable, so this shouldn't be deleted without discussion". I looked at the Polish Wiki article, and the references seem to be non-independent of the subject, but I could definitely be wrong.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep while article definitely does require sourcing - Polish version does have a few notable, independent sources that can be used, notably gamezilla, galu, polygamia. If there's anything that can be questioned it's notability for English wikipedia, as magazine in question is rather unknown abroad (though one of more notable in Poland). SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia doesn't make any distinction as to where a subject is notable, or the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we take any language source for notability determinations, but we also have different notability and source reliability standards than other Wikipedias. czar  04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Polish WP page is mostly original research based on primary sources, and the three secondary sources mentioned are of unclear reliability (and the second, the interview, definitely isn't). If anything, I could justify a section within an article on the mag's publisher, if there were enough sources for that project. czar  04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  czar  04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as although the Polish Wiki has some sources, the article is still questionable overall and would be best restarted or at least reworked to be better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the one who contested WP:PROD deletion, because it seemed that a discussion was needed to evaluate the sources in the Polish Wikipedia article. On looking at them further (and yes, I read Polish pretty fluently) it doesn't seem that there is much independence and/or reliability there, so this looks like a "delete" unless someone can do better than me at finding independent reliable sources. If this is deleted I don't see any point in putting it in draft or user space - the point of Wikipedia being a wiki is that articles on viable topics are available to anyone to edit rather than hidden away where nobody will see them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not currently verifiable. Publishing house and editors not in Wikipedia, which means the only way to verify any of this is with independent, reliable references. These are completely lacking in the article currently; according to even the ones in the Polish wiki don't really do the job. ubiquity (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (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.