Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-Zero: Climax

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero: Climax

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this Japanese-exclusive game awhile ago since making a comprehensive reception section to establish its notability seemed impossible. Climax doesn't seem to be listed on metacritic anymore. When it was, basically these were the reviews there. GameRankings is empty. « ₣M₣ » 15:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect if there is something to redirect it to. (If this material was merged don't we need to retain the history so we know who provided the material that was merged?) RJFJR (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged to F-Zero. Also, the original article was at F-Zero Climax before it was copy/pasted to its current location. « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per coverage from third party, reliable sources found below. (Sometimes, with games like this, instead of looking for reviews, you need to look for previews from the timeframe when sources thought it would probably be released in other regions. I've learned this in my writing articles on obscure, JRPGs.)
- IGN, x2
- Nintendo World Report
- Siliconera
- GameSpot, x2
  - (EDIT: It seems some of what I found was at the link FMF gave too. Still, that doesn't change the fact that there's enough coverage to warrant the game's article. In fact, it adds Famitsu to my list of sources that covered it as well.)Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've cleaned up and added to the article some since nomination. It's still pretty rough around the edges, but the third party coverage is there. It's certainly not a WP:GA, but it does meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per significant coverage. I doubt a press release-esque article regurgitated on multiple gaming sites automatically means the game is notable. Shouldn't a editor spend time critiquing the product? Minus those, three links left. What makes Siliconera reliable? Only four sources are reliable without question and actually bothered to spend time with the product. « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:GNG - Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It says nothing about having a certain number editors or sources critiquing the product. That's not a particular requirement of the GNG, which is the ultimate thing we must adhere to here. There's enough coverage to do what quote above regarding the GNG is saying.
Regarding Siliconera, per the consensus regarding sources by Wikiproject Video Games, Siliconera is useable under the circumstance of: only for Japanese exclusive titles or titles there exclusive at the time the page being cited was published. Or, in other words, situations exactly like this one.
Above all, lets remember what we're discussing here. This isn't user created fan game or non-notable junk from the App Store. This is a game from a major publisher, in part of a long running series. There's coverage out there, whether we have access to it right now or not, whether it be printed media, sources from Japan, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←)There is no discussion I can find proving Siliconera, and it doesn't matter what this game is apart of since notability is not inherited. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to prove this article's worth is through non-trivial sources, not single paragraphs claiming the game's announcement or rumors of its existence. Non-trivial reliable-proven sources are IGN and Nintendo World Report. I'm not sure about Famitsu Cube & Advance, and Famitsu Weekly since their reviews consists of four editors writing one paragraph each. [1] Not to mention these will be hard to find and no English source bother translating it. « ₣M₣ » 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, you didn't look very hard when it comes to Siliconera. Per the link I just gave you above, it took all of 5 seconds to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4#Siliconera
  - Regarding Famitsu, there is no deadline, all we need to know now at AFD is that the coverage is out there. I'm sure we can find someone to translate it sooner or later. And to suggest that a review from such a major source wouldn't count towards the WP:GNG is quite a stretch. I think you're hold the threshold for meeting the GNG higher than what it truly is meant to be... Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding and translating this Famitsu weekly review is a lost cause. Overall, a great project for someone to work on their userpage, but its not appropriate for a stand-alone article that is going to mainly rely on three third-party English sources. This doesn't have the potential seen on Kid Klown in Crazy Chase. « ₣M₣ » 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a lost cause? Why is it not appropriate? Why isn't there potential? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable game that passes WP:GNG CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as long as GP Legend is. AnddoX (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it's definitely not pretty, Sergecross's additions have made the article pass WP:N. Nomader (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and format sources. New sources are very reliable and demonstrates the notability of the game. —Hahc 21 05:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was well reviewed, commented on and covered by respected magazines and reviewers, got plenty of press and is part of a notable series. No reason to delete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 3 August 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.