Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantasy Star Adventure

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. I won't comment on the intention behind Lucia's nom or ChrisGualteri's opposing view (they've been imposed an IBAN since the start of the AfD); I have faith that if NARH couldn't find sources establishing independent notability, then this at best merits a mention in Phantasy Star's article; I find consensus to delete but I'll use my discretion to recreate and redirect as a valid search term. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star Adventure[edit]

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

There is simply not enough reception or development information (i've looked) to consider this article notible. Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in Phantasy Star. The game appears to be not notable enough for its own entry. The references provided simply mention the game in passing or (in the case of Moby Games) appears to be a compendium/tertiary source. Gm545 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite being rather short, I've found four sources already and the review from the French Legendra source gives more details on the function and work and combined with the other review provides with enough verifiable opinion and statements of fact to suggest that independent it is part of a notable franchise. I'm not expecting it to hit GA until someone can pull up the Japanese sources from places like Dengeki or Famitsu, but I've been doing that with Gaiden and I'm certain their are quite a few in the native language - the game was never released outside of Japan after all. It used to look like [1], but I've since improved it quite a bit and without much hard work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I took a look at the additional sources but, as you mentioned, they're in French and Japanese, except for that fan review which is by definition not a good source. If there aren't any significant English-language reviews, I'd suggest it's not notable enough for inclusion in the English-language Wikipedia. Gm545 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed, withdrawing comment. Gm545 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine per WP:NOENG and Wikipedia is not Angelo centric. Any topic can exist, provided the coverage meets N or GNG, is acceptable and RPGFan is acceptable for reviews for gaming. I got other Japanese sources, but I want the actual Japanese mag sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really, the english wikipedia all has to do is provide any course from anywhere (as long as reliable) in english. not that we need english sources. so that's acceptable. However, with such few reviews, it may not be enough to justify it. But regardless, i'm simply trying to be "neutral" here. alternate language reviews IS acceptable.Lucia Black (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please stop mentioning the fact that the franchise is notable. that is not part of the discussion and does not help your case. Its like claiming the manga adaptation of Legend of Bardok is independently notable simply because the franchise is notable. You lose credibility when you make such reasoning.Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally sought sources for all three of these Phantasy Star articles and have found nothing to use. Not to brag, but I am fairly decent at sourcing rather obscure subjects. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (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) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (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.