Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyko FrontMan

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyko FrontMan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find dedicated, 3rd party, RS coverage.

As the list indicates, IGN took a particular interest in the product line, and even write a few more articles on it too. There’s enough to meet the WP:GNG here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently written and in its unreferenced state, this is a WP:A7. Not sure that the refs above change this. They prove existance but was this product really popular and notable in its time; and reviewed as a top products in Tier 1 RS. I don't think so? Britishfinance (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- An A7 would be wildly inappropriate, incompetent move here. All sources are reliable, third party sources, with consensus for being so per WP:VG/S. Every source is multi-paragraph and dedicated entirely to the subject. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP - all that matters is that the sources exist. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Existance is not notability. I can provide a yearly article from gardening magazines on the specific brand of fertilizer I use on the lawn, but that doesn't make the fertilizer an automatic subject for a WP article. This was a very niche product with very niche references. Unfortunately, there is nothing in any reference which says notability – that is why this is still, even post your references above, so close to an A7 case (and I as I said, if I tagged this article in the unreferenced state that it was s A7, it would get deleted). Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the second time now that you’ve lectured me on existence not equating notability, and I’m just as baffled this time as I was the first. At no point was it’s existence cited as a reason to keep the article. My argument was that it met the WP:GNG through dedicated and sustained coverage over the years through reliable third party sourcing. The assertion that massive entertainment and technology publications like IGN and Wired (magazine) are minor niche outlets is equally ludicrous. Also, as a person who has deleted over 1200 articles at CSD, a simple Google search would have found enough to disqualify it from an A7. If someone did, they would have done a sloppy job with a violation of WP:BEFORE likely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry Sergecross73, I don't mean to lecture and apologize for that; w are all volunteers here and it is important that we can all enjoy ourselves doing this. My A7 point is that, unlike AfD, a google search is not required to check notability; it is based solely on what is in the article. Even an unreferenced claim of notability can prevent an A7, but a no claim of notability (and no references), is an A7. You have provided good references and this AfD has not had much comment so far, so another re-list is probable, and your refs will get a full hearing. cheers. Britishfinance (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- An A7 would be inappropriate here because A7 requires the article be about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. The topic of this article resides within none of those categories. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’ve integrated 7 new sources into the article, and added s brief reception section. Far from perfect, but it demonstrates a viable path to cleaning up the article at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see how it fails NPRODUCT; the rationale does not make it clear which of the cited paragraphs in NPRODUCT are relevant and my read of all of the paragraphs therein does not point to failing that particular part of NORG. Perhaps the GNG is relevant here given the rationale, however....
Even if the deletion rationale better fits with GNG, the coverage Sergecross found is sufficient to meet the GNG. Keep. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 4 March 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.