Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Life

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 merge to Gamer Network. The article being frequently linked, finding reliable sources being too hard or the topic being the main source of information on Nintendo are not notability criteria and cannot defeat the source-based notability concerns. That said, there is a valid alternative for deletion that has gained some support and nobody explicitly demands deletion over merger, so merger it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources that indicate notability. I can find plenty of passing mentions, but nothing in-depth ABOUT the subject. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Haven’t searched enough to make a call yet, but the GamesIndustryBiz article is a RS dedicated to the topic of Nintendo Life partnering with another RS, so I wouldn’t classify it as “zero sources”. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nintendo life has been the main source of news on everything Nintendo online for many years now. Personally I think it should be kept Seasider91 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gamer Network as alternative to deletion. Plenty of trivial coverage and passing mentions, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage other than the two references already in the article about the partnership with Eurogamer/Gamer Network. I'm also not entirely satisfied with those sources for establishing notability, since both gameindustry.biz and VG247 are part of Gamer Network, so not fully independent. Lowercaserho (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I wasnt aware of that connection, thanks for pointing it out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly, I'm a newbie on Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm editing incorrectly. Secondly, I'm the founder/owner of this website and therefore biased, however, as the user above has stated we've been the most authoritative website on Nintendo news/reviews/features for a number of years now and are referenced by 1,000s of articles on Wikipedia. I would love to see the page fleshed out to include more information about our journey and I'm aware this needs to come from a third party source. I'd be happy to work on making this happen to improve the quality of the article as I feel our website is very notable within the industry. Nintendo themselves use our review scores as a point of reference. As for Gamer Network, we are not owned by them, unlike gamesindustry.biz and VG247. I'd be happy to answer any questions or work with a Wikipedia editor to improve the quality and accuracy of the article. Thanks antdickens (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I'd be delighted if you provided enough significant third-party coverage to satisfy our notability criteria. I spent a while searching myself, but wasn't able to find it. You're probably in a better position to find any that is out there than I am though, and I'd love to be able to change my mind. If you haven't read them already, you'll probably want to check out our pages on conflict of interest and on how we interpret notability. (With regards Gamer Network, I'm aware that you aren't owned by them, but are affiliated/partnered with them. I actually made a mental note to myself that the Gamer Network article needs to be improved to make that clearer, but haven't got around to it yet.) Lowercaserho (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Nintendo Life" is referenced in 1,516 articles. [1] Expecting a reliable source to prove its notable by requiring other reliable sources to mention it, is a ridiculously impractical way to do things. Newspapers and print magazines are automatically notable based on how many readers they have, most of them not mentioned by their competitors anywhere. The core founding policy of ignore all rules applies here. Dream Focus 17:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's how we work, we required in depth coverage of a source to keep it. Popularity and audience count are not factors in notability, unless it is commentary related to those numbers. It doesn't mean that a non-notable sources is not a reliable source. --Masem (t) 05:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gamer Network. Well-suited home for it there. (Even if not owned by GN, the partnership helps to give it weight appropriate there.) --Masem (t) 05:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest this article to be sent back to Draft to make it passable however after searching it does seem difficult to find many articles on it. Spy-cicle (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2019 (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.