Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Junkbot

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Junkbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

6 of the 9 provided sources are from Blocks Magazine, a magazine for Lego fans. A search in gnews yields 2 hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The game has a dearth of independent, reliable sources that limits its notability. I have sadly not found any additional sources online or from the Internet Archive. As a comment, whilst this problem is not particular to legacy Flash games, they do seem to often receive little online coverage due to their type and medium of publication. It's a shame greater attention wasn't directed to them. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I completely agree with Blocks Magazine being used unreliably. There are no other sources I could find. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 26 July 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.