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. Editors agree that although the coverage required for notability has not been demonstrated, it can be assumed to exist under the circumstances. That does not prevent specific unsourced content in the article from being contested per WP:V.  Sandstein  05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Saver[edit]

Gaia Saver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD for a Super Famicom game (Japan-only release). After a frustrating and unsatisfying discussion on the article's talk page about the lack of coverage in independent sources, and assertions from an editor that discussing such topics are "waste of time," I searched for new sources and evaluated existing sources on the page that support notability. Many sources were wikis and discussion boards, which are not independent. Search results in English were lacking, so I searched for the title in Japanese, where reviews and such were more likely to be found:

• sales information reporting very high sales in Japan. This is the only source I was able to find that supports notability.
• A credits listing, which doesn't provide evidence for notability.
• A listing in the online version of Famitsu magazine (translated from Japanese). No reviews or rating information.
• this very brief description of the game and its sales on a site that appears to be a blog (translated from Japanese).

Finally, one editor of the page asserted the following in a revision summary: all SFC/SNES (Super Famicom / Super Nintendo) video games are notable. I know of no Wikipedia guideline that supports this statement. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indeed this is frustrating. what kind of sources you want? I already added the "source" from super-famicom.jp which is the "official" SFC games site. this is a video game from 1994 and it was never released outside Japan, unfortunately there is no official web site like all these new generation games.

honestly, if an article like this (with cover art + info + sources + categories already added) is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there.

I never played this game before, it means absolutely nothing to me, so I couldn't care less. I just think it's totally unfair deleting it just because someone thinks it should be deleted, plus I don't understand your fixation with the article. another funny thing is... the article was created at XX:54, two minutes later someone (YOU) already adds that Proposing deletion stuff. Chill out man, people (non-vandals) are not here having fun, give the creator some time to improve the article. it's because of this kind of behaviour that sometimes I think I should give up on Wikipedia. --Hydao (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether this game has an official website or not. It's about whether the game is discussed in-depth in third-party, independent sources. While I would normally allow more time for articles, I took a good deal of my time to search for sources on this game in both English and Japanese. I didn't just nominate this because the current sources were no good. I nominated it because I made good faith effort to look for sources on my own. And I didn't find any. Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found.

Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis. I know you guys are not vandals, but I nominated this because I don't think the article is supported by WP policies. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No wonder fewer people are volunteering on Wikipedia. With the guidelines becomes more strict for articles every month, people are giving up on Wikipedia. A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores. There are some "unofficial" references for older video games on the Internet, but there are also magazine and newspaper references that might be interesting to look at for some of the older games. GVnayR (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that guidelines are becoming more strict. WP:N and WP:GNG have been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed all that much in the sense that it has required third party, independent sources for a good while. However, I do agree that video games, especially old ones, can be hard to find sources for (compared to new ones), and that content about them can be encyclopaedic. But it's not impossible. Take the WP article for KiKi KaiKai for instance-- it's a Japan-only release. The article cites several reviews both in English and Japanese, and its notability is backed up by sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KiKi KaiKai is not Japan-exclusive. The arcade (first) version was released both in Europe and North America, plus, it was released for several home consoles, so the probabilities of having more info are much higher.

"Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found."

I only removed it once at the very beginning I guess, and it was in good faith.

"Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis."

Honestly, I didn't use it as an argument, really... but it's just the truth. --Hydao (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Lately (or since I registered on Wikipedia) i've been editing a lot video games articles, so I know what I'm saying. I'm here trying to improve the articles a little, not to destroy or delete them. --Hydao (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Kiki KaiKai isn't a Japan-only release. My bad. This still doesn't change the fact that this article needs to fulfill WP:PRODUCT. Also, of course you used WP:ALLORNOTHING as an argument (why else would you write it here, then?) and statements like "it's just the truth," "I edit a lot of video game articles" and "I'm here to improve articles" are commendable, but unhelpful to your case. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already lost enough time on this. You're not going to change my opinion and vice-versa. I have more important things in life to worry about, I need to go for now. My opinion is simple, keep the article, that's all. --Hydao (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydao and GVnayR. - Even though the game is unknown overseas, it is somewhat well-known in Japan and apparently part of a larger franchise called the Compati Hero Series (which tangentially related to the Super Robot Taisen series). Jonny2x4 (talk)

Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps. Notability is not inherited from its larger series. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable, as someone back in the day had to have either reviewed or covered them in one way or another. As GVnayR pointed out above, most of these sources would be print-only as well as in another language (in this case, Japanese). –MuZemike 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have presumed there would have been reviews of this, considering the fact that it sold so well. I conducted several searches in Japanese and on Japanese video-game sites, so you can imagine my surprise when I was unable to find anything. You would think if game was notable, it might actually show up somewhere on Japanese websites aside from places to purchase the game. So no, I am not convinced of notability based on a presumption that reviews must exist. I also have yet to see a policy noting that all published and released video games are inherently notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, Jethrobot... now you are having a point: "Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps." The page doesn't exist yet (I think), so it's a good idea to create the page. As I said I never played Gaia Saver, but I played other games from the series and I can say that those games were (or are) very popular not only in Japan. I grew up in South Asia, this series was very popular back then. I wonder why no one created the page during all these years...

--Hydao (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to a new article on Banpresto's long-running "The Great Battle" series, from which this game appears to be a spin-off. to Compatible Hero Series. There's already a page on The Great Battle IV which can also be merged. The games by themselves may not be notable, but there's enough content for a series page. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A few games from that serie already have a page. It is better to improve or expand the existent articles rather than delete or merge them.

And by the way, here is the page: Compatible Hero Series. Feel free to help improving it. --Hydao (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the case of the majority of older console games, trying to show them the door because relevant sources don't jump out of the internet is a waste of time because they almost certainly exist but are unlikely to be present. I don't believe for a second that a crossover game starring characters from series as beloved as Gundam, Kamen Rider and Ultraman will not have received a torrent of attention from relevant sources in Japan. The magazine articles won't be on hand because a lot of these games predate the internet's widespread usage and magazines are the mainstay of sources for them, in fact magazines are still hugely influential in the videogame arena, even now. Even a system as popular as the Commodore 64 has a weak web presence when it comes to magazine scans available, but it's not because the magazines don't exist. Take Impossamole, you might look at that and wonder how it's notable, and struggle to find any kind of sourcing online. Search for it on a magazine scan database like World of Spectrum or Amiga Magazine Rack and it quickly becomes apparent that it's just the internet's limits, not the lack of sources. Someoneanother 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the sales information for this game has now been removed per WP:VG/RS, as it appears that vgchartz.com is not a reliable source for this information. Now, there is nothing that asserts the notability of this game. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that you are the only user who insists in deleting the article. Go to the official website - http://www.banpresto.co.jp/ - maybe you'll find some uber lovely "reliable" source in there. Also, since VG Chartz is not "reliable", well, doesn't make much sense the existence of the wikipedia page about VG Chartz. Shall we delete it?

--Hydao (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VG/RS:

In articles about video games, citing the game itself is often attractive. Wikipedia favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised.

Primary sources might be the place to go for plot info, but not for sales-- there are good reasons this should be obtained independently. The game has already been merged to Compatible Hero Series. Currently, the article is a description of the characters and plot. Is this really worth keeping, considering the game no longer has any sources provide evidence for its notability? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is worth keeping, for now. I was wondering, if you had played this in the past, during your childhood, would have the same opinion? I agree about merging the article, but first the page Compatible Hero Series should be improved. Until then I think Gaia Saver shouldn't be deleted or whatever. What do you mean "The game has already been merged"? I only added the video games of the series, there is a lot to improve... And btw, the term notability is subjective. Do you want to improve the article Compatible Hero Series? I guess the answer is no, right?

P.S. The page will be something like this: Kunio-kun.

--Hydao (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: It's unfortunate that I am alone in this, but several editors who have supported keeping the article are using arguments that are not grounded in any policy:

• "Notability is subjective" per Hydao.

No, it's not. We have many, many guidelines that help us determine notability.

• Because sources [should] exist, but are no longer inaccessible, per Someoneanother

This is an assumption and there really hasn't been any evidence that such sources have ever existed.

• "Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable" per MuZemike.

I noted this above, but I have yet to see where this guideline exists.

• "A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores." per GVnayR

Just being "released into the marketplace" and people buying them is not sufficient. Millions of product exist on the market and we don't need a WP entry for all of them.

• "if an article like this...is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there" per Hydao.

WP:ALLORNOTHING. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you for the most part, although notability is by definition subjective - that's what the guidelines are for. All the "Keep" arguments here boil down to, "Well, it seems notable to me." or "There are lots of articles just like it." etc. It seems like any article with a few external links as references can past muster these days. Eh. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment having an official website does not make something notable. That is an internally controlled source. It is like just having self-punlished an autobiography does not make someone notable. This is a source controlled by the thing. I have not figured out if this is notable, but having an official webpage is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 27 July 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.