Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop'n TwinBee (Game Boy)

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 merge to TwinBee (series). Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop'n TwinBee (Game Boy)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable product Boleyn (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to main series article, TwinBee (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say a video game released by a major company for a major system is probably notable. There are probably print sources that we're overlooking. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in my edit resume, this game is part of a popular video game series (TwinBee) from a relevant company (Konami) released for an important platform Game Boy. ~~In my humble opinion, there are hundreds of articles about less notable video games so, if this article deserves deletion, many other less notable video game articles should be deleted before.~~ --Canyq (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A game linked to a notable series/notable developper/notable console doesn't mean the game itself is notable. We're not arguing the notability of Twinbee (series), Konami nor Game Boy, but the standalone notabilit of this particular subject. I that notability is not being established, but I agree with you that the series is notable, hence my suggestion to merge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Ok, it seems that the first part of my reasoning isn't valid for notability either. Therefore, I'll retire my vote for keeping and abstain from voting, even if I still think that the game is notable enough. Anyway, if the problem is finding a printed reference, I found this. --Canyq (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may well be less notable article, but we cannot keep non-notable articles just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the first part of my argument is still true. --Canyq (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.