Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira tto Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan

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 no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kira tto Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan

[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)

Not notable. See also ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Kira to Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it possible that the game has sources, but it's locked away in Japanese websites/magazines? The 1990s were a different time. Far less minor indie titles that receive no RS coverage. Most retail releases receive coverage. I could be wrong, and I don't know Japanese to check, but it's just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only found this(so far) via Imagineer(the game's publisher website) [1] (release date + screenshots)

Pandora Box's(the game's developer) website also exists [2] Timur9008 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Sergecross73 It is extremely likely. I legitimately don't like to even touch anything pre-internet due to itKatoKungLee (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a full review here. There is also (sort of) a review from IGN, even though it reads like it was written by a 13 year old with a thing against Japanese games. [3]. Still reliable source coverage though. One more like this and I'd be saying keep, as it's just scooching up to the notability line right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dengeki Nintendo 64 probably wrote something at the time but I didn't find a scan online. Japanese retro magazine Yūgē (now renamed GAME SIDE) wrote a two page article: [4] (pages 62-63) --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I can't read Japanese, the discovery of the GAME SIDE review(?) seems to put it over the edge with regards to WP:SIGCOV. IGN's "review" is laughably bad compared to the actual effort N64 Magazine did to test the game out, but you can't say reliable sources didn't take notice and there should be enough from the two articles to summarize everything about the game, were the other one translated into English. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZXCVBNM. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ZXCVBNM and the GAME SIDE coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now there are two reviews, one paragraph mention from IGN, and one mention from Nintendo and the developer. The two reviews are strong, but not enough for me. SWinxy (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to sources found by ZXCVBNM and Mika1h. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 15 April 2023 (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.