Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocky Bot

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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocky Bot[edit]

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

Three refs all from Nintendo life a very niche source and not robust or independent. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all i could fine where reviews, and NWR's List of Downloads (which included Blocky Bot) other then that, if Delete or redirect then im all fine with that. Aozz101x (Talk)

Delete - [1] is the only reference on a reliable publisher that I could find, and its only a listing. Other publishers are, as Nom stated, very niche and nintendo specific. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2015 (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) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I had the same results and although this is an interesting article, there's nothing to suggest better change. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SIGCOV in WP:VG/S-vetted reliable sources:

Plenty of news/previews from NintendoLife 1, 2, 3
NintendoLife full review
NWR full review

Also reviews from:

FNintendo review (undiscussed non-English source which still looks reliable)
GameGravy review (undiscussed but author reliability could be plausible)
Honest Gamers review (previously undiscussed site but author reliability is plausible, has written reviews for other RS sites)
8WorldNews review (author reliability is evident, also an author for confirmed RS NintendoWorldReport)

This is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salv's sources, specifically NintendoLife, Nintendo World Report, and Honest Gamers. Just barely enough to scrape by the WP:GNG in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nintendolife is considered a reliable source by WP:VG (please see WP:VG/S. What evidence do you have of a lack of independence? The site is not connected to the developer or publisher of the game and simply having Nintendo in its name does not make the site affiliated with Nintendo either.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is correct, the sources are independent from the game. Nintendo Life and Nintendo World Report's connection to Nintendo are like what Mac Life is to Apple Inc. or PC Gamer is to Personal computers. It defines the subject matter they cover, but has no actual affiliation or connection. Additionally, this game is neither developed or published by Nintendo to begin with, it merely appears on one of their video game consoles, so there's all sorts of issues with the nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (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.