Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bubble (DVD based games console)

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. ✗plicit 04:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble (DVD based games console)

[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)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Very limited coverage provided. The article is mostly sourced by user-generated Marketplace product listings, which is far from a reliable source. The LocoLabs sources are primary references by the manufacturer. The Marketing Week source seems to be an affiliate announcement about Bandai's marketing campaign for the product. There just unfortunately isn't enough evidence of any mainstream coverage to suggest that this is a product notable enough to merit encyclopedic treatment. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from nom's valid arguments, the article's creator already failed WP:COIEDIT by contributing greatly to the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a couple blogs out there, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I acknowledge I created this article in the talk page, albeit not using the template correctly. I don't understand why the deletion though? The product existed, that's not in dispute. Had I not stated I was involved in the latter stages, would there still be an objection? What is gained by hiding knowledge? I'm sure it will get deleted, but I'm not sure why? What facts are disputed? MrMarmite (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here seems to be a lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources, which is required for most articles. See WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT for the relevant guidelines. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is this deemed reliable? https://www.mobygames.com/platform/bubble/

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/teletubbies-tweenies-noddy-and-all-your-favouritesin-a-bubble

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3glUQpxLg MrMarmite (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No for all three. MobyGames is considered a user-generated source, as its information is crowdsourced. Gamesindustry.biz can be reliable for original reporting, but in this case, this is clearly a press release and not original reporting (see WP:ORGIND on intellectual independence). YouTube is considered a self-published source (WP:RSPYT for more details). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator TzarN64 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons nominator and MimirIsSmart stated. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per A412. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:41, 7 May 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.