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 MOOT, overtaken by events. Be careful merging an article that may be deleted because of GFDL issues, but it looks like consensus was running merge anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nnooo[edit]

Nnooo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Only trivial coverage in the form of name being noted in articles about the game Pop (which isn't all that notable either and its initial article was clearly created by Nnooo). Failed PROD with prod removed by article creator, User:Unoispam, who appears to be affiliated with said company. Also failed CSD as not clearly spam (though some sentences appear to have been lifted directly from the ELs listed). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Present. Bad behavior by the article creator isn't helping. Being the creator of a launch title on WiiWare tends to say 'notable' to me. Tempshill (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find a source that backs up it being a launch title? The one in the Pop article is a 404 link...and the few press releases I saw even mentioning the company's name say nothing about it beyond "made Pop"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to mention that the point brought up by Collectonian is invalid as it is not a requirement that a company is to create two or more products to be deleted, which seems to be his sole argument. I would also like to make it known to both of the users above that I am not affiliated with this company in any for or way, nor is it possible or likely that I will be in the future. The article provides clearly relevant and factual information and while the article is slanted, it can be improved if correctly edited. The company is also creating new products and it is obvious that if not now, a page on Nnooo will be needed in the future. If created now, less information will have to be gathered in the future as the majority of it is already in place. Unoispam (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is not invalid. There is no "likely" notability from it having a large stable of games produced. And as there is no significant coverage of the company itself, where is its actual notability? If you are not affiliated with the company, how do you know what it is currently doing? And please point to actual significant coverage in reliable sources showing it is notable. It has released one game and the company itself has not received significant coverage because of it. It has done nothing else yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL, future potential notability is not a valid reason to keep. For all anyone knows, it will go bankrupt before every releasing another game. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I know what it is currently doing is solely based on my own research. This site: http://www.massively.com/2008/05/20/nnooo-com-pitches-pokemon-mmo-own-name-gives-the-answer/ Is one of the many which has made it clear to me that the company is at least considering making new products. This also directly disproves the theory that it will go bankrupt before releasing a new game, as it already has asked permission from Nintendo to make several. There isn't "future potential", but a direct proof that this company IS expanding and will be well known in the future.

      I apologise sincerely if any of my actions have been considered "Bad behaviour". It is quite apparant that I am a new user to Wikipedia and I am still unsure of how to contest a deletion page. Reading the notice, it said a contest was allowed if I was to remove it and write my reasons in the talk page, which is what I did. Futuremore, it is clearly mentioned that the program is not solely for WiiWare, but for a variety of different consoles. The large popularity of this program is quite apparant and the company IS expanding, which is the reason I feel the article should stand.

      Unoispam (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Asking for permission to make something and an intent to expand doesn't get the article around WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. See this article from Eurogamer, this interview (Google Translation link) from Paulínia News, and this interview from WiiWare (note: this site is not a blog). Cunard (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and where is the significant coverage about the company, not Pop and its release? All of those are about Pop. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This interview from Paulínia News is an article that covers Nnooo in detail. If this source, and the above sources, are not significant enough for Nnooo to pass WP:CORP, then I would propose a redirect to and brief mention at Pop (video game), instead of outright for deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, outside the irrelevant context of Pop. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – That WiiWare interview I would consider reliable, but the others I wouldn't, or they don't provide significant enough coverage of the company itself to establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How is this interview not a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the company? Cunard (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL (and traces of WP:OR). Redirect to Pop (video game) per Cunard. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of just voting delete, is there anything wrong with a merge/redirect into Pop (video game), which I have done? Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, 'delete' sounds a bit more pithy than 'put it over there', but you have a point. Vote changed accordingly. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have now merged the content of this article into Pop (video game). For GFDL reasons, this page and its history should be preserved as a redirect to Pop (video game). Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to redirect to Pop (video game) per Cunard's bold merge. This could probably be closed, now. MuZemike 13:38, 30 April 2009 (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.