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. While reviewing the discussion, I found that the deletes were mostly based on NLIST and the keeps were mostly based on non-policy based criteria. For example, X entries are notable so the list must be notable is out of sync with policy. Because of this keeps were given less weight.
There was a general agreement that PictoChat meets the GNG. After my delete, I am going to restore the article, remove everything else and move the results to PictoChat. GuerilleroParlez Moi 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of messaging applications for Nintendo game consoles[edit]
Just a group of non-notable software that is still not notable even when bundled together. No real reason they cannot be talked about on the requisite page of the game system in question. (The article used to be about PictoChat only before it was turned into a group article, so maybe it should be page swapped with PictoChat before deletion). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PictoChat is notable. The others might not be notable by themselves but they were merged in here to keep them around. I would say if anything the article just needs some cleanup of excessive detail. Andre🚐 20:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: First of all, WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a real argument. If you have the sources to prove PictoChat is notable, please put them here, as I unironically would love to see them - a WP:BEFORE from me came up with only one of note. Second of all, I assume this is a Move to PictoChat and keep argument based on what you said, rather than keep at its current name, as bundling non notable, only tangentially related subjects is not under Wikipedia policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is extensive magazine coverage of PictoChat[1]. Most are passing mentions, but a few cover this more in-depth such as Play and EGM magazine from 2004 Andre🚐 21:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: These all seem like trivial coverage, not extensive coverage. Can you point to the ones in particular that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a blurb in this issue of Play[2]Built in to the DS hardware, PictoChat lets up to 16 users converse, exchanging messages and drawings with the DS’ wireless capabilities. and it comes up again Not unlike PictoChat, Ping Pals is messaging software that lets up to 16 players communicate via DS. I'd say those blurbs plus the screenshots is pretty much what passes for significant coverage in a gaming magazine. It's more than a passing mention but not the main topic of the entry. Plus EGM [3]The stylus-centric wireless instant mes- saging/drawing program PictoChat is built right in to the DS hardware. with screenshots. Again, this is more or less a decent mention for a gaming magazine. There's also a bit in this publication "The Girl's Guide to Gaming" [4], p.299-301. This one looks decent as well [5] p.17-18 And check out this one[6]Andre🚐 21:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: The only one there I'd call non-trivial coverage is the Hyper magazine review, but since there are also GameSpot and IGN hands-on impressions of Pictochat, I think I'm convinced that it's notable, since that is three WP:SIGCOV sources.
That said, it still has no bearing on whether a list like this is notable. But I would support a "move back to PictoChat and trim the rest" result for this AfD, since PictoChat is the only notable subject here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes, I don't really see anything to keep in Wii Message Board / Wii U Message board. Those should really just be described as features in the Wii(U) articles. Andre🚐 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm struggling a bit to see where exactly you're drawing the line with some of these editorial decisions. This is an unnecessary split, but Nintendo DS Browser was so necessary you restored it with almost no improvement? Please help me make it make sense, beecause it feels random and arbitrary as is. Sergecross73msg me 21:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, Nintendo DS Browser is an unequivocal pass of WP:GNG while no application in this article is notable. See WP:NEXIST, as the quality of an article at the current time does not correspond to its notability/potential for improvement. The browser article stands to be drastically improved once its reception gets expanded and cruft removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not redirected for notability reasons, it was redirected for being an unnecessary split from the parent Nintendo DS article because it's just a basic port of a basic web browser. More or less the same thing this nomination is getting at. Sergecross73msg me 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty much an WP:WEDONTNEEDIT argument. I could also say that Firefox is a basic web browser as well, and I would be telling the truth, but it is still highly notable. The fact is that the Nintendo DS Browser was unique as it was a standalone purchase, necessitated critical reviews for people to decide on said purchase, and had its own hardware adapter to even make it functional. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for PictoChat it was a notable messaging feature and had a cultural impact, it was a feature that reviewers and commentators specifically spoke about. It was a built-in feature but was billed as a new software platform for messaging. Andre🚐 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two items on this list have separate articles, one has an entire section of a larger article, and one has been discussed as notable above. A "Non-notable" argument does not work here. The others are probably non-notable, but that is what you get with lists without notability criteria sometimes. In conclusion, this should not be deleted, especially not for notability concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: By your own admission the only notable thing here is Pictochat. So, you should specify the article be moved to Pictochat even if kept. There's no particular reason to bundle Pictochat with everything that came afterwards even if they aren't even the same thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Did you read my reasoning? I said that two of them had their own article, which clearly makes them notable. Neither of those were Pictochat. One of them had an entire section of another article, which is a lesser, but still there, form of notability. That one was not Pictochat either. Pictochat was the one discussed as notable here. That is four notable entries. The rest are just byproducts of a list criteria not based on notability. Clearly, notability is not a valid argument for deletion here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: None of them would be notable enough for a standalone article besides Pictochat, so they do not "have their own article". They are a section of a larger article that is not entirely about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I was wrong about one, but Swapnote, one of the entries on this list, has an article, as you can see by the link. Swapdoodle has its own section of the article on Swapnote, and Wii Speak Channel has a section of the article on Wii Speak. Pictochat is clearly not the only one worth mentioning. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: Swapnote has an article, yes, but it shouldn't. It's not notable. If you can prove that actual WP:SIGCOV exists of Swapnote I might legit consider withdrawing this AfD, but right now I can only find trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my argument is that the coverage is not significant despite being mentioned by WP:RS. The Joystiq one was simply a trivial news update as far as I could tell. I am pretty confident the article wouldn't survive AfD without being merged to Nintendo 3DS#Swapnote, making it yet another "section of a bigger article" type mentions. The article claims there was a GameSpot review but the lack of any source and the fact that it is "out of 5" rather than 10 makes me think it's a hoax. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Swapnote has a metacritic page. The "Swapnote Remastered" update was covered by Nintendo Life. Twice. Destructoid also covered the remastered update. There is an article about Swapnote at TheGamer, assuming that is reliable. A news update entirely dedicated to Swapnote is hardly trivial. This is clearlyWP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having a Metacritic page" is not significant coverage. Everything has one, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
The Gamer is also not considered proof of notability per WP:VG/S
And news updates can be trivial if they are simply informing on patch notes or announcements and not describing something indepth. If nothing better can be discovered I will probably be nominating Swapnote for AfD whatever the result of this one is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against that. Just from a cursory glance of a few sources (IGN, Nintendo Life, GameSpot), Swapnote has a lot of significant coverage. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo Life went into detail about the why, not just patch notes. There were also several other quality sources. How is that NOT significant coverage? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Individual apps might or might not be notable, but there's no assertion versus LISTN that as a whole, Nintendo game console chat apps are an element that's been the subject of critical focus. Sources that X, Y, and Z exist do not equate to "A List of X, Y, and Z" being worthy of inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly unsourced. There is some scattered coverage that might make sense for a redirect, or very selective merge if someone wants to suggest a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin If this page does get deleted, please move it to PictoChat and delete all content not under that heading rather than the entire article. The swapped with page can then be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sections without references should either get references or be deleted, but this kind of model of "small topics merged to a general list somewhere" is a good one. While ideally it would be an overarching topic with general coverage as David Fuchs mentions, as this is a Wikipedia grouping, it's not completely forbidden to group these in some fashion that makes sense on Wikipedia, and "messaging applications" doesn't really seem like OR. So as long as there are short, referenced sections that are kept in some sort of meta-article like this one, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore PictoChat as a standalone article. Fails WP:NLIST with minimal coverage of these subjects as a group. There seems to be enough coverage of Pictochat for standalone notability. Other applications have less coverage and many already have articles or sections in other articles. FrankAnchor 16:16, 21 March 2023 (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.