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. An AfD where there appears to be confusion as to what the article is actually about will probably struggle to achieve a meaningful conclusion; no prejudice to renomination in the future, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z Side Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans

[edit]

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

This article is showing no notability and despite the release of the game Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2, most information will only involving said game. It was redirected once before on the same merits. It is mostly using the Dragon Ball Wiki as a source. Sarujo (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2. Sourced only to Wikia? Yeah, no. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no need for a redirect unless this is a possible search term. Is it? I doubt it from what I've read so far. Shadowjams (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated article with better sourcing, this is actually an old video game with a OVA adaption. A remake of the OVA has been announced and will be released with the Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2, but is not related to the game itself. Dragon Ball Z: Plan To Destroy The Saiya-jins already redirects to List of Dragon Ball video games. This is just a variation of the same title. —Farix (t | c) 16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news finds one result. [1] I ran it through Google translator[2], and it seems notable enough to me. Says it was only released in Japan, thus not seen before in the west, and that now it was going to released again in a game. It says its "the first feature film based on Dragon Ball Z", which adds to its notability. Anyone search for Japanese coverage of it? Dream Focus 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the claim to be extreamly dubious because it is NOT a featured film, but a two-episode OVA. The website is of unknown reliability, but if it makes that claim, then I would have to consider it unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The opinion of one person isn't how websites are declared reliable sources or not. Perhaps its a Google translation error. Maybe in that language they use the same phrase for home movie and featured film. Anyway, Google news considers it a notable news site, so I say that counts as a good review, as does the coverage in Anime News Network. Dream Focus 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google News includes random blogs and forum posts in their search results. So it doesn't mean anything. —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And just to show how much that claim of being the first DBZ feature film Dragon Ball Z: Dead Zone predates this OVA by a little over four years and was actually released in the theaters. Eight other DBZ films also predates this OVA. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Meristation article does claim that "Plan..." is a feature film (and not home movie as Dream Focus suggests), which is wrong since it's an OVA, and as Farix said, the first DBZ feature film was released in 1989 ("Plan" is a 1993 OVA). Meristation is a videogame website, thus really not an appropriate source for an anime, particularly with such misconceptions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the article calls it both an OVA and a feature film (OVA twice), and correctly dates its release to 1993. SharkD Talk 03:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Dragon Ball films#Original video animation. The only thing that really needs to be merged are the sources. There simply is not any coverage by reliable, third-party sources beyond the release announcements. —Farix (t | c) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Dragon Ball films#Original video animation, per Farix.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a playable game of sorts that was released for the Playdia in Japan as Dragon Ball Z - Shin Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku Chikyū Hen. It was later released as an OAV I believe, but this was in fact a video game. I'm not really comfortable deleting an article on a video game based on a nomination and delete votes that don't seem to even know what this game was. Are we going to start deleting Sega CD FMV games, as well? I don't like this AFD, especially if someone starts going through back libraries of Atari 2600 game articles and deleting them all on the basis of this AFD. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a tough deletion argument to sell. Vodello (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you don't it either, this began as a video game on the Famicom. The two part OAV was produced as strategy guide for that game. Either way this game has no coverage or real world impact. That's not an I don't know it ploy. Also yes, if those games are lacking notability then they should be deleted, no questions asked. Sarujo (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert tertiary passive aggressive retort here. Not playing this game today or any day for that matter.) Vodello (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are is pretty clear that I knew exactly what I was talking about. I was the one that attempted to salvage the article before realizing that there just wasn't enough coverage by reliable, third-party sources to save it. Your premious is wrong in that we don't delete articles on games just because they are old games. We also don't keep articles just because they are old either. We determine inclusion based on the amount of coverage by reliable, third-party sources, and there just wasn't any. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this special is as notable as the other specials and movies however I believe we should try to improve a little more. I would assume a large number of notable sites cover this but in Japanese. Plus we should keep this article strictly about the special rather than the game except for mentioning that it's based on it and clips from it were later strewn together for the playdia game. And although it serves as a guide, it features a full audio cast and fully animated so it warrants as a special. --Victory93 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I would assume a large number of notable sites cover this but in Japanese." We don't assume, we verify. Making assumptions is a sucker's game. —Farix (t | c) 12:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article could be notable if we searched for more, and it seems like it has a few refs on there.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the sources are reliable. One of them is a primary source and cannot be used to determine notability. The other is a reported based on an announcement, which is trivial coverage. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 16 November 2010 (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.