Deletion of Nintendorks

Comment: What is needed is not references on independent websites, but non-trivial coverage in |reliable sources.  "Yearning for notable third party coverage" is in fact one of the only things that is relevant in this debate, its passage of   and  are the only relevant criteria to judge the website
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: nearly all of the links you supplied are from |unreliable sources, and even there the mentions of the website are trivial.  And before I nominated this article for deletion (along with a host of other non-notable forums around the same time) I have never visited or heard of the website.  Many times people don't like it that a website they may have a large emotional investment in does not satisfy   or , but |Wikipedia is not a web directory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:WEB||WP:NOT)

Comment: as failing the  notability guidelines. No non-trivial third-party coverage, never won any independent notable awards, not distributed through more notable means
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)