Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBBeat

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. Worthwhile endeavor, but unfortunately fails our notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBBeat[edit]

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

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG, also completely unsourced. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much. P anini ^🥪 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and it looks like a random 2005 leftover on WP. Wario-Man ^talk 13:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Seems made-up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 20:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping its significance in mind it is better if the article is improved. Stangpa (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stangpa: Can you show multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject? SK2242 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try if there are. My point is, it is a significant article, and keeping this live will be helpful for general masses, particularly for a section of society. The reason I am supporting the article is; it seems that it is not for any advertising purpose or maintained by anyone for any profit. I don't know why Wikipedians waste time by nominating such an article created around one and half a decade ago.Stangpa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's definitely a real game as per this but I don't see it being notable enough for an article, sadly. Just doesn't seem to have coverage from third-party sources. Really cool idea, though Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.