Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwolf (NES video game)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Airwolf (NES video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video game. Fails WP:GNG for a lack of independent reliable sources which offer significant coverage of the game. PROD declined with the assertion of sources having been found, but the two sources are one paragraph from a several hundred page compendium and a second paragraph in another several hundred page compendium. These trivial mentions do not meet the threshold for notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I found this from the sources on the page. Also, there's Google. Could anyone judge whether any of these reviews are good enough for WP:GNG? (I don't have time to go through them.) If not, redirecting to Airwolf could be a possible solution, though there is a disambig in the title. Ansh666 01:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, okay then, keep per Bushranger. Ansh666 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those sources do in fact establish notability. From precedent at AfD, it should be noted that siginficantly lesser coverage has been argued to establish notability before. There are also additional sources that were not used that establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, trivial mentions in directories of every video game ever released establish that the game exists, not that the game is notable. And of course you're aware that the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean anything, and linking to a " no consensus" debate seems an odd tactic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are also additional sources that were not used that establish notability." Remember that sources must only exist to meet notability - they need not be in the article itself. Ansh666 18:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There do seem to be reviews out there, and a few of them even look like they might be reliable sources.  Not exactly drowning in notability, but I guess The Bushranger is right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per adequate coverage in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. We don't need a whole book about the subject, and a whole, detailed paragraph in a book is significant coverage. Cavarrone 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in notable secondary sources. So what if it's only "one paragraph long"? Things noted with an entry in more than one work of reference should handily clear our notability bar. Ford MF (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article about an NES game published by Akklaim for a Nintendo System should be kept.  NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.