Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculator (Nintendo Switch)


 * 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) WJ94 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Calculator (Nintendo Switch)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All the reliable sources I could find only give it a trivial mention announcing it exists and maybe a jab at how expensive it is. This is perhaps expected considering the simplicity of the actual software but means it is non-notable nonetheless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: It probably deserves a mention somewhere, as many reliable sources have called it out for being a dumb idea. I would vote to keep the article as is if someone can find a source outside of that one week in May. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the most amazing idea, since almost everyone has a smartphone these days, but I'd guess it has its uses. Regardless of my opinion, the real problem is that there is not much commentary on the app itself or its functionality. It's the definition of trivial coverage, and everybody just says the same thing. If anyone actually reviewed the calculator in an objective manner, it might be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it has plenty of coverage, but I do question if it meets WP:SUSTAINED, considering it was only really discussed for being a stupid idea before moving on after a week. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as article creator – things like the TechRadar ref are SIGCOV in my opinion, and most everything else is the most that can be covered about it—it's a calculator. While that can probably be used as an argument against notability, I think the existence of sources, WP:GNG states that significant coverage makes it so that no original research is needed to extract content, and the article doesn't contain OR, and that it is a non-trivial mention. Given that the articles are all about the Calculator specifically, I think it's a non-trivial message. DecafPotato (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's so basic that it cannot be covered in more than a few sentences, maybe it simply innately lacks notability for an encyclopedia. However, I believe it has the potential for an *actual* review and it was simply ignored in that regard. That is to say, it could be notable with the right coverage, but it's not, since it only got a bunch of snarky remarks in various game websites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been non-trivially mentioned in about a dozen gaming publications, which is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider is that the nominator believes that the article's citations only demonstrate "trivial" coverage. How could this possibly be the case when in most cases the app is the primary subject of the cited articles? Partofthemachine (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those can be the case at the same time if the article is just a short announcement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - even stupid products can be notable if they received dedicated, significant coverage from reliable, third party sources, like this one does. Sergecross73   msg me  16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't actually think it is stupid, so this is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I would like to see the WP:SIGCOV examples you state exists, though. Everything that I checked from the references seems trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing you've already been told up and down this nomination - the article is already filled with many WP:VG/S-approved third party sources dedicated to the subject. Entire articles written around the subject. We all define significant coverage differently, but it's rare to not consider 6+ sources written specifically about the subject to not be enough to meet the GNG. You're setting the bar too high, and I find it strange that you don't realize that. Sergecross73   msg me  12:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently setting the bar at "more than just a news announcement that it exists" is too high. I saw almost no actual critical reception positively or negatively or reviews of the calculator. That would be enough to disqualify any standard video game. You can't solely determine notability from the fact that a trusted source made a passing mention of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are setting the bar too high. None of that is required in meeting the GNG. And there's a complete disconnect between your claims of "passing mention" and the actual sources being used in the article. I think you're a bit too caught up in the mindset of merge discussions. We commonly merge back split out articles that are relatively short. But there's nothing wrong with short start/stub articles existing if there isn't anywhere that makes sense for merging. Sergecross73   msg me  00:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Its the main subject of all the cited articles as far as I can tell, which makes it more significant than just a "trivial mention". Since some people are unsure as to wherever it had sustained coverage, I did find articles after May 2021 that mention it, including a game that seems to be a parody of the original - --Totalibe (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are all dedicated to the app, satisfying WP:SIGCOV. Yeah, it's a stupid product, but still passes WP:GNG. JOE BRO 64  15:47, 1 February 2023 (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.