Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo On (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. Secret ^account 01:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo On[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Nintendo On" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

All sources are primary (the video itself, an interview with the author, some soundtrack album) or not considered reliable; I cannot find significant coverage of this hoax and don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Perhaps it could warrant a line or two at Wii? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable hoax. Not sure it created the splash it claims to have. I can't find any coverage either. (Though its hard to do a search with 2 words that would be so commonly found together.) Fails the WP:GNG unless someone else can find some better coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I only see the semi-secondary 1UP piece (already in article) and non-in-depth 99lives piece, and nothing more except primary (by video creater) or unreliable pieces (forums and boards). Just to be clear, an article about a hoax is okay, the argument here is that it doesn't pass GNG or WP:WEB. I don't think any content belongs in Wii or anything Nintendo-related, but may be in a list of (sourced) hoaxes if such were to exist. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all accounts. The problem is the lack of notability, not that it was a hoax. I also agree that it probably doesn't belong anywhere else unless there were some sort "list of hoaxes" article that didn't require the items to have their own article as part of the inclusion criteria, (which is sometimes the case in list articles that could potentially be so massive.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This cute toaster lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. The only meaningful coverage was the 2005 1UP feature. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 19:06, 15 December 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.