Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo's Tech Support Forums

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. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo's Tech Support Forums[edit]

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

I declined a speedy G11 on the article, but still think it needs to be deleted for notability problems. Fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the creator of the page...

I am sorry if the article looked like advertising, and as stated in the talk page, I am willing to make changes if someone would point it out to me. I do not mean to advertise this organization to expand the number of users, but I mean to offer the page as a reference to Nintendo's services. Please give the article a second chance, and I will do my best to fix any problems found. Thanks! Carwile2 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem isn't that the article is written as an advertisement, it's that the forum itself isn't notable. There need to be multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the forum. Independent means not affiliated with Nintendo. See WP:GNG for more info. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, and quite frankly, I'm not sure how it'd be realistically possible for a tech support forum to do so... Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the chances of a tech support forum being notable are pretty much nil. This one is not an exception. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable. Nintendo's Tech Support Forums are the only service that Nintendo Offers to fix older systems such as the NES or N64. Otherwise, if you call Nintendo, they couldn't help you because the systems are no longer supported. I will find other sources, and that will take care of the source problem, and I will try to update the article soon. Thanks Carwile2 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to read up a bunch on how Wikipedia defines "notable" and what constitutes a reliable source. Hey, maybe its possible, but I've never seen a company's help messageboard rise to that standard. It may be more realistic to try to add some of the more appropriate information to an already existing, relevent article, like Nintendo or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article fails the WP:GNG obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what I need to do is...include reliable second and third party sources in my article, and then it will fit the Wikipedia Guidelines more closely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwile2 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can even just link to the sources here, we're in doubt that the sources exist. Sources that establish the notability of a subject need to be reliable (i.e. from reputable sources, not blogs, facebook posts, or forum threads), independent (the author and/or publisher shouldn't be affiliated with Nintendo in any way), and the coverage must be significant (i.e. the primary subject of the source should be the Nintendo Tech Support forums, as opposed to an article about something else that happens to mention the forums in passing). And ideally, there should be multiple such sources. Again, WP:GNG is the bar you're looking to get over here. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out WP:IRS should also help.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so my mission for these next few days is to cite my article with notable, legitimate sources, and then I have passed the WP:GNG guidelines? Carwile2 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I found some sources outlining these forums' notability:

http://gonintendo.com/?p=90755 This page shows that Nintendo's Tech Support forums are notable since they are no place to "hang out", but are aimed at solving problems, unlike most forums.
http://zazna.com/selection/ZWE0NjhiY2 This source documents the purpose of the forums.
http://kotaku.com/5961600/if-your-wii-u-wont-connect-to-your-wifi-router-heres-what-to-do This page is an example of the help to with these forums supply their users

Eh, no, sorry, you're not on the right track. The Zazna stuff are messageboard posts, which are not "reliable". GoNintendo, of which I'm pretty familiar with, as I read it a lot, is still not a Wikipedia-reliable source. It's just a random dude with a website/blog type thing going on. Also, all three of the sources suffer from the fact that they...don't really say...anything about the techforums. I mean, even if GoNintendo was useable, all he really said was something along the lines of "Hey guys, remember it? I liked being there." Even the Kotaku one isn't really about the forums as much as it is about repairing the Wii. You need coverage that actually talks about the forums, not just references or reminisces about them...(Which, yes, I know is hard to do. That's why people are saying it's unlikely to be found notable in the Wikipedia sense.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That's what I thought. Back to the drawing board, I will try to find some good sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwile2 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable forum, the lack of reliable sources means it fails the general notability guideline. ~ Satellizer el Bridget ~ ^(Talk) 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Subject...does lack support from secondary sources outside of the forums. I do find, However, that it can be stated that a significant amount of coverage of the forums comes from non-affiliated users of the organization (posts within these forums from users not associated with the company). As for the subject's significance, I wrote the article supporting the fact that it is unique, offers support for no longer supported items, and tolerates nothing that does not have anything to do with tech support. I can make out a very vague loophole, for the company is not the one promoting the organization here (it has rarely mentioned it), but the advocacy of the forums come from thier users. Carwile2 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Carwile2, none of the factors you cite deal with the topic's notability. You really need to re-read the notability guidelines as well as understand what Wikipedia is not. The fact that the forum is not sponsored by Nintendo is irrelevant because the article is proposed for deletion due to notability, not because it is a form of self-promotion. The facts that it is unique and that if offers support for otherwise unsupported items is not relevant because those things are not criteria for notability. And your sources do not satisfy the requirement because they do not establish the topic's notability. (If they did though then they would have to pass the test for reliable sources which is a bar they'd not likely surmount.) Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand...I have read and reviewed the notability guidelines, and know that the sources previously listed do not quite fit the guidelines. That being said, I need to explain the projected point. I did not mean to say that the forums are not sponsored by Nintendo, because that is just the opposite. What I meant to imply was that Nintendo does not often meddle in the forums, they leave most posting up to the users. Now, although I said that posts on these forums by non-Nintendo users were perhaps secondary sources, I do not expect this to pass the clear-cut guidelines. Should this article possibly be deleted, I should still like for it to be included in a Nintendo Support article (perhaps a more valid article for me to create). I do wish to help Wikipedia! Thanks! Carwile2 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not being honest with our readers that the sources have conflict of interest with the subject per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. Nintendo is notable, but the forum is not. It should be deleted per lack of independent reliable secondary souces and WP:NOTINHERITED. Algébrico (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (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.