Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter

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. Consensus from discussion participants was to keep the article on the basis that the referenced sources included significant and reliable coverage about the peripheral. (non-admin closure) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am skeptical as to whether this article passes WP:GNG. The only two instances of significant coverage I could find are the IGN and CNET reviews, which are also the only reviews listed here. Everything else appears to be trivial coverage, hence why I am nominating it for deletion. Game Boy accessories would be a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest withdrawing the deletion nomination; not only is there plenty of coverage, especially after the recent overhaul I've been working on, but the article is currently in submission for GA status (which, should it pass, would render this proposal moot). I'd appreciate any moves like this wait until after that period ends, as a professional courtesy. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA has nothing to do with notability in the slightest; it's purely a test of whether the article is well-written, and even if it was already a GA it would not have "immunity" from deletion or merger. GA rules do not require a check for notability, though I personally disagree with this. Therefore withdrawing this purely to allow it to go through GA would not help, and in fact, hurt, in the event that it gets deleted *after* someone spends a lengthy amount of time checking the article. Ensuring it is notable now is the most helpful thing possible in the circumstances. If you believe there is coverage then I'd appreciate another source of reception that is equivalent in its significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2, 13 and 16 are about this peripheral, the rest only help flesh out the article, also helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 seems trivial in coverage. It starts with "according to a press release from Motorola" and simply regurgitates said press release without much else... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And source 39. One press release in a RS and three other sources, we're ok for notability. There's a reason this is a GA article, it's well sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a rather detailed Cnet review [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough reviews/articles covering the adapter specifically to justify an article. Cortador (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCESEXIST. It is not enough to say "sources are there" without saying which ones specifically satisfy it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you literally mentioned 2 dedicated sources from reliable sources in your nominations...? Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there are reviews covering the adapter specifically. They are part of the article. Cortador (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This nomination rationale confuses me a bit. It concurrently mentions 2 dedicated reviews from reliable sources while musing that they wonder if the WP:GNG is met. Two sources meets the multiple sources the GNG requires. I know we prefer WP:THREE but I just can't wrap my head around this "skepticism" when you've already got 2 as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's incredibly atypical to keep an article with only 2 small review sources. The guideline also says that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage", implying that the fewer the sources, the deeper and more indepth they must be. In this case they are not deep at all, the IGN review being a typical paragraph or two if you compress the numerous line breaks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one may wonder sometimes. But this is a GameBoy accessory, so I would speculate beforehand that the chances of deletion are low. IgelRM (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's more than sufficient information noted here for the article to stand on its own with WP:NVIDEOGAMES or WP:N. Its development history is noted, which is something in-depth about a device accessory here. The nominator is sounding like they would rather die on this hill for the article to be deleted. – The Grid (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not out to "get this article deleted", in fact I am all for pages about obscure gaming peripherals, just surprised at what appears to be Bizarro World (which, incidentally is up for deletion) with regards to the stringency of sourcing necessary for an article. But, as with the last person, simply saying "there is more than sufficient information" and then mocking the nominator is not an argument without saying which ones are SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the existing refs: the Eurogamer preview, the CNET review, the three IGN articles, and the Retro Gamer article make for four instances of reliable, independent, nontrivial coverage, so it's a straightforward GNG pass. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After having looked up the Retro Gamer article in question: [2] It's just a single paragraph, seems trivial as well. The only independent commentary is "For the most part, the Wireless Adapter was a pretty overlooked peripheral". As a single publication counts as a single source for the purpose of notability, it's only down to the Eurogamer preview, which is also a trivial single paragraph. Non-trivial they are not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we cut it back to a stub article, we have four sources in English, the Japanese one talking about it. Plus the other mid-level notability items as sourcing. That's honestly more than we see for other articles here. We have enough to show notability; perhaps the size of the article isn't representative of the information given in the sources, but 5 small sources should equal at least 2 decent sources. I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point. The thing is notable, just perhaps not enough for a GA article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the strongest article, but I believe that the sources present in the article constitute significant coverage enough to justify it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Not really sure why this is an AfD. The accessory meets GNG due to coverage from reliable sources including IGN, Eurogamer, and CNET. Article is currently a GA nominee and any quality concerns can be addressed through that process. MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times already, the Eurogamer source is NOT significant and does NOT make it meet GNG. It is restating a press release with no extra content. Please state what part of it qualifies it as significant in any respect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still have the other two sources, the Japanese one, and the rest of the sourcing used in the article. I'm not so fussed over having two extensive sources instead of three. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Sufficient significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:26, 13 August 2025 (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.