Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoycottAdvance (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. Sandstein 10:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoycottAdvance[edit]

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

Non-notable emulator that fails WP:GNG. Refs given do not appear to be significant mentions. Some paper books were mentioned in the previous AfD but no refs from them have ever been added to the article, so the fact that it is significantly discussed there can't be proven._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't yet done a thorough search, but the books brought up in the first AFD only contain trivial mentions of BoycottAdvance. "Retro Gaming Hacks" has a short, one-paragraph instructional on how to set up BoycottAdvance, and "Game Design Foundations" has only one sentence mentioning BoycottAdvance at all. I'd argue that both of these constitute trivial coverage, and can't be used for establishing notability per WP:GNG. If notability-establishing sources are going to be provided, people will have to look further than these books. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either of those would constitute as a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia's definition, honestly. Most of the time when I've seen editors add "video game hacking" websites, they're just self-published obscure blogs written by hackers and enthusiasts, not actual professional writers/journalists. Oops, never mind that. "Retro Gaming Hacks" sounded like a generic website, but it's actually a book written by a professional journalist, so ignore these comments. That being said, your concerns about it not being significant coverage seems valid, especially considering that this article is over a decade old and still hasn't developed outside of a single sentence as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 15 February 2018 (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.