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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nixxes[edit]

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

Article is not supported by any sources. The article does not currently prove why it is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, the article doesn't make any credible claim to notability. The company isn't the developer of any of the games listed in the article's table; it simply translates existing code from one computer platform to another. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have added content and even a reference to the article to make it obtain enough notability for a to-be-expanded stub. Lordtobi (✉) 20:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Like SwisterTwiser said, I can't imagine notability by themselves. A developer porting games from one system to another can't be notable in reliable sources either. --Soetermans. T / C 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Abstraction Games seeks the same kind of priority and still seemed to have received enough content for an article. Lordtobi (✉) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means that no one got around to nominating that article for deletion. Based on my reading of that page, I believe that all of the commenters here would express the same opinions on Abstraction Games. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NewYorkActuary on this. Abstraction Games uses Metacritic a lot as a source of unnecessary praise, while they just port games. --Soetermans. T / C 22:37, 3 February 2016 (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.