Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Backup File System


 * 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wii Backup File System

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

Only one "quality" reference; Lifehacker isn't enough to warrant an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable software. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it's not notable. While it does have two references (not "one" as stated in the nomination), I tagged this article over five years ago and have since become frustrated by the fact that the subject matter will be impossible to properly source. This is all reverse engineered by hackers, so it will be original research at best, and rely on self-published sources. —  void  xor  22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Would be pointless even to merge, as I am pretty sure that the Wii has been hacked enough that WBFS is no longer necessary to use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom and the other reasons voiced in this discussion (e.g., no way that this will be able to pass GNG currently). DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article fails GNG and the software in discussion is not notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable software fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - If anything is worth mentioning, it makes sense to be in the parent article. Jacona (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (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.