Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo World Store

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo World Store

Nintendo is a large and powerful corporation, no contest as to its notability.

I do not feel the same about the "Nintendo World Store" however. It is not that notable at all really. JacobPowers (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.1,390,000 Google hits, definitely meets notability, verifiability. Equivalent to an Apple Store policy wise. I would weakly suggest being merged into Nintendo main article, however I find it's best suited as a stand alone article. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this article to my userpage To-Do list if it remains. Definitely recommend expansion. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References in GameSpot, Reuters, USAToday and another reliable third-party sources. This article needs to be wikify, not deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Sources are numerous. My logic would follow Digital's. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add reliable sources. The biggest hub for anything and everything Nintendo has to be notable. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a Google search might serve as a semi-reliable barometer of notability, the ultimate test (and requirement) is non-trivial third party coverage by reliable sources. So far, none have been presented, and none of the arguments for keeping this article are grounded anywhere close to policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage by reliable sources that could give the subject comprehensiveness, thus failing WP:GNG. Reliable sources so far give passing references in the form of "a sale or launch event is going to take place there" or "it is opening on this date". Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — added some iffy sources that I tried to find on the article's talk page. MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nintendo. A Google search turns up hits, but hit counts are not a replacement for reliable sources. There are assertions that there is coverage in third party sources but none have actually been put forth as an example. My own Google news search shows that the store is mentioned quite often, but I found no articles where the store is the subject. As such, inpendent notability is not established and referenceable information can be merged into th main article about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable; if not merge to Nintendo Nintendofootball (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In what way is it "clearly" notable? -- Whpq (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (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.