Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bionicle: Matoran Adventures


 * 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. Nom withdrawn after RS were provided on which there was a consensus that they met GNG (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Bionicle: Matoran Adventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Received no reviews according to Metacritic and GameRankings and I don’t think it received any notable coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Argonaut Games. Contains no references and thus clearly fails WP:GNG.  🕵️Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at the sources provided by Lordtobi it does seem to have could enough sources to be made into a workable article but currently no sources are even provided in the article thus is essentially WP:OR for all I know so I would still suggest this to be redirected until it can be appropriately sourced.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, available sources: (review) (review). These might be helpful to determine notability.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like decent pre-release coverage, but only a handful of reviews. Hm. This is worth considering. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently Game Informer reviewed it in the November 2002 issue as well. This review was incorrectly attributed to a different Bionicle game in GameRankings. I’m going to withdraw this nomination. There seems to be enough to salvage something here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn in a later comment, but a redirect !vote exists. Regarding the redirect !vote, it is of note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability does not hinge upon the state of sourcing in articles. Overall, this discussion would benefit from more input for a solid consensus to form.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references found above are enough to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator withdrawn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.