Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Des Blood 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Des Blood 4

[edit]
Des Blood 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no reliable coverage. This video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This game fails" what is wiki coming to? THIS is considered valid? really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.100 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you going on about? SL93 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that, because of the link appearing next to the link to your user page, the commenter misread your remark as "This game fails" rather than "This game fails WP:N". Dricherby (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no substantial coverage from any reliable soource. Neither Metacritic nor GameRankings list a single review for it. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a commercial product endorsment. BO; talk 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid game just because you did not do research to find it does not mean it does not exist. The page just does not have enough information the reason for this is because it is in Japanese. Check the following reputable game sites:
  • The mobygames site is not a WP:RS source--entries are user-contributed.
  • The gamespot page is a sales site and devoid of content.
  • The gamefaqs and gamerankings pages are trivial directory entries.
  • Existence ≠ notability. If you can find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, please do so. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sites (eg. gamespot, mobygames, and gamefaqs) count under WP:GAG as secondary sources as "most objective evidence of notability." Sources are also "not required to be in English." if you look up the japanese name in the search engine then you can find reputable sources however I can't read japanese well. As for notability Google search yields 88,000 results in english and 3,430,000 results in japanese. If it was not notable there would not be that many japanese results.If Moby and Gamespot is not a reputable sources then we should also put Captain Skyhawk, Dusty Diamond's All-Star Softball, The Mafat Conspiracy, and Color a Dinosaur which only uses those sites as references.--Cs california (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see anything in WP:GAG related to your comment.
  • The gross number of Google hits is fairly meaningless--you need to look at what is being returned. I had a look at some Japanese Ghits and they seemed even less useful than the English ones above. So I went to Japanese WP to see if they had anything better, but neither this game nor its predecessors in the series has an article there. If you can find substantial, independent, reliably sourced coverage from Japanese or other non-English sources, please provide them.
  • If those other game articles are insufficiently notable, then they should also be nominated for deletion, by an editor acting in good faith and having conducted WP:BEFORE checks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources listed also qualify under WP:RS Self published sources where "This includes any 'website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth'" this shows that mobygames, gamefaqs and gamespot are reliable sources--Cs california (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I also agree with the words that directly precede your quote: "...are largely not acceptable" [emphasis added]. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPS per gamespot-Cs california (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Des_Blood_4&oldid=1137781565"