Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Family Gerende

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. v/r - T P 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Family Gerende

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

I could not find any reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything is fine with the article (infobox, categories, external links, etcs) except the summary section which needs to be improved/expanded. It is an "obscure" game, spiritual ancestor to We Ski. There are only 3 skiing video games for the Super NES/Super Famicom console. No reason to delete the article. --Hydao (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete the article is that it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. The problem is that the game hasn't receiving any coverage like game reviews, or news, or even historical analysis. I couldn't find anything about the game. If you were able to find such sources, please list them here. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaia_Saver

I don't feel like having the same kind of discussion again. Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is some "reliable info": http://www.nintendo.co.jp/nom/9810/p06/page06.html (Nintendo's official website) --Hydao (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to force the discussion again, but I didn't get to participate in the last one. This one seems different too since the other AfD is about a theoretically more notable game due to the crossover characters (did I really just say that?). I also don't buy the whole "someone must have written about it" argument. I've spent hours looking through old video game mags to find references for some games (though not this one), and some games are just simply not notable. Also, the article you link to provides trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable, that's why I wasted some time in creating the article. I'm just here to contribute and try to improve shitty articles. Anyway, the Nintendo's link is a reliable source, right? --Hydao (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do thank you for the investment, but in this particular case the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. To avoid this in the future, just stop by WT:VG and ask there if the article you are thinking about creating is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ (article wrote by Kevin Gifford) ... More info: http://magweasel.com/about-me/ --Hydao (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source is self-published and can not be used to establish notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just sharing the link wrote by a competent guy, it was not for the notability thing. Anyway, I have nothing more to say. The Nintendo's link is in there.

Thanks for the advice, I'll do it next time. About Super Family Gerende, it needs to be improved, not deleted. --Hydao (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (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) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (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, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with We Ski. I agree that the subject may be notable on its own but the existing references do not appear to verify it in an independent manner. If there's independent verification of it influencing less obscure games such as We Ski (kind of like the relationship between Pilotwings and Wii Sports Resort, perhaps) then this material could fit in well at the more solidly-supported page. §everal⇒|Times 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging doesn't make much sense, I think. I added 3 more external links to the article. "Unfortunately" there are only Japanese sites. --Hydao (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging, because that assumes we have any verifiable information in reliable sources. I see none. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm curious to know what you would consider a reliable source about this topic. (Oops, I should also mention the line from WP:RS about blogs: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." What policy states that this material cannot be used to establish notability? §everal⇒|Times 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider any source which can be proven to be reliable, a reliable source. If you have questions about the reliability of a specific source, feel free to ask at WP:RS/N. I do not maintain my own separate set of criteria for reliable sources and I am open to special cases. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

... So that means... http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ ... http://magweasel.com/about-me/ ... is pretty reliable. Sorry, Odie5533, but now I totally disagree with you. Plus, the game is mentioned on Nintendo's official website. Definitely KEEP the article. As I said before only the Summary needs to be expanded a little bit...--Hydao (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ !vote changed to keep, see below. The issues for this article should be (1) removing the citations to blogs, (2) removing the material sourced from blogs, and (3) identifying an appropriate merge target for an article that would have content "prominence" in the proper context, but whose sources for notability are currently inaccessible in English. User:Several_Times is on point, and while there might be other targets than We Ski, it is a good choice. So this !vote is made while allowing that at some future time, an editor with access to Japanese sources might want to add this article to the Japanese Wikipedia and then bring the article here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can always create the Japanese wikipedia article, I'm 100% sure they will not want to delete the article in there. Seriously, why giving so much trouble? I'm not using this as an excuse/argument but there are hundreads of shitty vg-articles created throughout these years by lame editors (yes, literally lame) and no one gives a flying sh*t about them: poorly written articles, no box art image, no screenshot, texts 99% copied from other sites, categories all messed up, just sh*t. then there are those editors (me) who bothers uploading an image, screenshot(s), correcting the lame mistakes and etcs, and then comes a random so-called administrator (no offense of course) who feels like deleting or messing with other peoples work. sorry but I can't accept this. there are hundreads (not to say thousands) of Japan-exclusive video games who have an english wikipedia article, and no, they don't have "reliable" sources, because ermm, they are Japan-exlusive... but the articles still exist. Super Family Gerende shouldn't be deleted or merged, but IMPROVED. there are only 2 or 3 skiing video games for the Super Famicom console, people must know that this game exist, that's all. the reference on the Nintendo website is not enough? seriously... I have many Super Famicom magazines but unfortunately they were bought between 1993 and 1995... and this game was made in 1996... Also, I worked for the Famitsū DS+Wii magazine a year ago, so... should I ask a friend of mine to send the old Japanese magazine(s) who actually talked about this game? so I can scan them, and send to Mr.Administrator? too much trouble, dude... --Hydao (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to Keep, because I have been persuaded that this topic fits better in the encyclopedia as a stub along with the images that have been uploaded. I also think there is solid Wikipedia support for the idea that all commercial video games need stand-alone entries. To those on both sides of this issue, IMO the closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaia Saver is worth rereading. I stand by my points (1) and (2) above for this article, but AfD is not clean-up. Unscintillating (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you presented falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking in reliable, third party sources, minimal content of substance to begin with. I'd only support a merge if we actually had a source calling it a spiritual sequel of sorts. Right now, to me, it just looks like two separate skiing games made decades apart by the same company. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need a source, before We Ski, Namco only produced ONE (or maybe two) home console skiing game which is Super Family Gerende. The Nintendo's link is a reliable source. Why am I discussing with people who know nothing(?!?) about video games? --Hydao (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, and address ideas, not editors. Beyond that, what did I say that suggests I know nothing of video games? All I said is that they released two skiing games decades apart (Nothing in your responses suggests this is false.) and that the article lacks third party sources. Nintendo's link, while reliable, doesn't count as third party. It was made for their system. Even if it did count, an article usually needs more than just one to establish notability... Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I'm sorry, eventhough I was not thinking about you/your opinion when I wrote that. Well, as I said before, it is a Japan-exclusive "retrogame", so it is hard or impossible to find/have third party sources online. As you can see, the article has already more than one "source". Some editors says that GameFAQs or MobyGames aren't reliable because they are user-generated. So how about wikipedia? Wikipedia is user-generated as well. In many cases they are much more reliable than Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, I'm kinda tired or sick of correcting this and that on Wikipedia. So... this thing of notability or reliability... hmm...--Hydao (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Gamefaqs, Mobygame, and Wikipedia are all not reliable sources. You can't use wikipedia pages as a source either. None of that is a valid reason to keep the article though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this article "notable"? Hong Kong 97 (video game) ... I see thousands of Wikipedia pages with no citations, sources or external links. For me it's fine having an article about that game, because it's informative. But the truth is... it was not published by a big company, there are no citations but it still exist. Wanna delete it too? I'm getting tired of this. --Hydao (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another invalid reason to keep this article. Other bad article's existence doesn't mean this one should be kept, it means it's possible that one could/should be deleted as well. If you want to save these articles you keep creating, I'd suggest (in good faith) that you do some research on wikipedia policies, notability, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's bad only for you. I didn't create Hong Kong 97 (video game), it exists since 2006. Yes, wikipedia policies are "ambiguous" (I could use a better adjective but I don't remember now), and unfortunately this thing is full of weirdos and incompetent editors, many of these no-lifers have OCD, this and that syndrome (hey, I'm not talking about you, I didn't know about your username until an hour ago). I should stop contributing. :'( It's sad but I think I have no choice. Right now, I just wish I had the amount of patience required to put my brains to a good use, and develop a conspicuously elaborated virus able to bring down all wikipedia servers for good, forcing them to close down the website terminally. That way, you'd all stop wasting precious friendship time with futile comments and sayings. Seriously people, NATURE is out there. Just BREATHE.--Hydao (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of that is appropriate for this discussion. Please stay on topic. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do what you said above over one article such as this, then I recommend that you reevaluate your lifestyle, as it may be somewhat out of whack. –MuZemike 09:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article for this very uncommon Japanese video game looks promising. All it needs is some research material from magazine and newspaper and it has the potential to be a complete article. I believe that ALL video games are notable no matter which country or countries it was released or not released for. The problem is that English Wikipedia focuses too much on North American/European video games and doesn't focus enough on Japan-exclusive video games. We need more information about Japan-exclusive video games on Wikipedia and this looks like a good start to me. GVnayR (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it needs is some research material All every non-notable subject needs is some research material. Your reason for keeping could be applied to any article in existence. Please read WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that WP:N only requires that the sources to establish notability be "likely" to exist, and that reliable sources are likely to exist in Japanese? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about how best to answer your questions, so here goes: I do not think WP:N only requires sources be likely to exist, and I do not believe that sources for this game are likely to exist in Japanese. Some video games receive little or no press upon release. Even if we were to lower the bar to require only that sources be likely to exist, we do not have any evidence supporting the claim that sources for this game are likely to exist. Hypothetically, if there was a video game for which we could not find any reliable source but we did find that GameSpot or a similar reliable database had multiple listings for offline sources for the game, then, depending on the sources listed, I would consider keeping the article based on the fact that sources are likely to exist. I think this case perhaps goes against WP:N, but it would at least have a case. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review WP:N#Notability requires verifiable evidence, also known by the shortcut WP:NRVE. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that previously and again now. It doesn't really have any application to the discussion we've had thus far. I am not sure why you linked me to them. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that you would agree that WP:N only requires, based on evidence, that sources be "likely". Unscintillating (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stretching it a bit far to change "verifiable, objective evidence" into the less rigorous "likely". --Odie5533 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:NRVE: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Salvidrim (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that line is that it is meant to apply when an editor is considering nominating an article for deletion. I come to this conclusion because the line directly preceding the one you quote states, "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive", and because the weak term "inappropriate" is used. An example of where it would be inappropriate would be an article with no sources that is about a clearly notable topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)See WP:N/N#Alaska Veterans Memorial for an article and discussion where it was agreed that the sources were "likely" and that this was sufficient to remove a notability template. This was not an AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see relevant discussion at WT:N#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge into We Ski If a RS can be found proving this is indeed the "spiritual predecessor" of We Ski. As of right now, no notability is assessed in the article. The sources are GameFaqs (user-submitted content), Nintendo.co.jp (which proves existence but not notability), and a fact-source at SNES Music which does not even discuss the game. The question is not whether the game is notable, but whether the article assess notability, and it doesn't. Salvidrim (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I revised my vote, see lower.[reply]

This small article: http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ ... was written by a guy who actually worked for GamePro and etcs, so he's an expert. http://magweasel.com/about-me/ ... Also, how can I prove about the "spiritual predecessor"? It's logic. Before We Ski, Namco only released ONE home console 2D skiing video game. The game is the spiritual 2D ancestor to Namco’s We Ski, I repeat 2D. There are other 3 or 4 skiing video games made by Namco... Alpine Racer, but they are all 3D, not 2D--Hydao (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, slap me silly, I had somehow completely missed the "External Links" section. Salvidrim (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Revised vote: the "external links" contain at least two third-party sources assessing sufficient notability IMO, however they need to be used to expand the article. At the present time, most of it appears to be an almost word-for-word rendition of the Magweasel.com article, which is not ideal. Needs work, but not deletion. Salvidrim (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide me the links to the specific two sources you are claiming support notability? Thanks. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende (as per "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."), and http://www.super-famicom.jp/data/su/su_0147.html (although my japanese is far from perfect). http://popgun.joyfulroad.moo.jp/?eid=480904 , although a good review of the game, is a blog, thus might not be "reliable" enough. I say this as my opinion, not as "fact" (implying you're wrong), so, Odie, please don't try to argument and explain how and why I might be wrong (at least not here. If you have constructive comments about Wikipedia's guidelines in general I'd be happy to listen to the feedback on my talk!) Salvidrim (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a SNES game, something from "superfamicom.jp" would not be a third party source. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: I have opinions as well, but I leave them at the door in order to form consensus based on reasoned discussion. I should hope that others would do the same. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about undisputable facts, there would be no need for discussion. The very fact there are disagreements are because of different opinions. :) Salvidrim (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians, I was searching for my old Super Famicom and Famitsu magazines... published between 1993 and 1995/96, yeah and even old gaming magazines from Hong Kong... sadly I didn't found stuff about this specific game as expected, but there are stuff about dozens or hundreads of other so-called "obscure retro games"... can I use them in the future as a "third party source"? and how? I recorded this random video for my youtube friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_sXXwlUvDQ ... maybe I'll do more in the future and with better image quality...... In those magazines there are reviews, overviews, cheats, images, posters, flyers... you know... --Hydao (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask such questions. Please, keep on topic about this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 16 October 2011 (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.