Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jett Rocket


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jett Rocket

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability, game only released with past 24 hours, article tells nothing about this product other than it's being a "WiiWare Game" Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this article should be deleted for the same reasons I listed in it's talk page: "The deletion proposal on Jett Rocket on the grounds of a piece of media "only being released yesterday" bares absolutely no ground. Especially since there are countless articles on video games which haven't even been released. Impicating such a reason for deletion would make Wikipedia laughably out of date with any new piece of media. In addition to all that, this game is notable, as it is developed by a notable developer, on a notable platform, by a notable distribution method, so I heavily believe this article should stay." ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImNotADoctor5 (talk • contribs)


 * Article is under construction and is still notable. "Only states product is a WiiWare game" is indeed notable, and I am still working on the article to add a least a few more paragraphs. And please, don't edit your reason for deleting the article just because your original reason bared no ground. Don't try and make me look like a idiot, because frankly, that's something I don't appreciate. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User was warned about failure to AGF. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did assume good faith beforehand, thank you. Needless to say, mentioning that you did to me, here, isn't required. So it shouldn't be used as a hollow arguement against my edits. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not bite the newcomers. I also interpreted your deletion rationale as completely condescending. Slamming templates on the user's talk page while continuing to talk down to him on this page is only further trying to drive a new editor away. Vodello (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argumentative tone is neither appropriate for this venue, nor appreciated. My mention of the AGF warning was intended simply as notice, not as an argument. It was intended to inform other editors who may also feel that statements like "Don't try and make me look like a idiot" fail to Assume Good Faith. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ImNotADoctor5 doesn't seem to have an argumentative tone, however the tone taken here feels like a light case of WP:BITE, Wuh  Wuz .  Let's just leave this issue alone and focus on the article. --Teancum (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never intentionally been taking an "argumentative tone" (although you certainly had one towards me in your talk pages, that you have conveniently deleted), but I apologise if it seems like I have taken said tone. Needless to say though, my original counter to your AfD stands exactly as it is. I still believe it's a mistake, considering every WiiWare videogame article before it was considered notable, and that to try and delete an article because the game (which was in development for over 2 years, and gained press interest for over 6 months) was "only released yesterday" is plain absurd. Once again, thank you for your time and responses. ImNotADoctor5 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The game doesn't inherit notability from the developer, the console, or the distribution method, but there are reliable sources for the game and it needs to show them to better demonstrate notability. IGN has covered the game and Nintendo Power wrote about it in relative detail within the last few months, so that will further the notability if someone digs that up.  There's also a developer's blog for expanding on the other sources. —Ost (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Ost. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – reliable sources, , , , . –MuZemike 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Inherently notable per reliable sources and video game notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2010 (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.