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. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenar[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Lenar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

As failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines, there were not any sources I could find on this company. OK, I get it; Maybe their NES game Deadly Towers has received notability, as it was a best-selling title in North America, there hasn't been made any history on the company, if there had been any significant coverage of the company, and if the company is still around or extinct. EditorE (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we turn this article into a redirect to the Deadly Towers article. If this game is the only notable game in the Lenar lineup, then it should focus primarily on this video game. GVnayR (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Lenar, but I'll try to make a research later on or so. --Hydao (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (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) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG -- no reliable, secondary in-depth sources on the company. Having notable games does not establish notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). The article lists no GNG-suitable sources (one is almost empty directory listing, other is a brief mention and not focused on the subject and that site is not a WP:VG/RS). Above wiki link is WP:USERG and not reliable. Redirect would be suitable if target article had any info on the company, but none do. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Developing notable games is notable--what else does a notable company do but develop notable projects. Inheritance runs downwards, and NOTINHERITED means that the fact that this company is notable, does not by itself make each of their games notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Deadly Towers. Developing notable games does not necessarily establish notability especially if they are known to have made only one notable game (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frozen North Productions for an example) and they have not been the coverage of enough reliable sources independent of the game's coverage - that is, there isn't enough coverage of the company itself, rather, only that of its game. However, similar to how information on Frozen North Productions was merged to Flip's Twisted World, the minimum content there is can probably be mentioned in the Deadly Towers article, after which the title can be a suitable redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Lenar games. I wrote a short blurb on the category page. I could not find any sources supporting notability of the subject. I even tried searching in Japanese for "レナール" combined with the Japanese game titles and I could not find anything. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to category. The only ref with actual text contains weasel words doesn't actually have any coverage of this company / brand / whatever, just their body of work. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When dealing with articles on non-English subjects from the "pre-Internet days", it seems fair to assume we might be missing out on many of the mentions the subject probably received in print media, etc., back then. That plus the fact that they've made games that are deemed notable is enough for me to vote keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuganatsu (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both DGG's and your arguments are strong for an exception to the GNG, but part of why I like strict application of the GNG is that it helps determine if an article could even be written about the subject. If we only find a few sentences written in passing about the company, then what will we write about in the article? We can talk about their games, but they already have articles. If at some point someone finds a few reliable sources dealing with the company, then it would warrant an article and they could write one. But we don't really have that at this point and it doesn't seem likely to occur in the immediate future. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never understood how an author can be less notable than one of his books - same thing here, as DGG says. Since any sources will probably be in print and in Japanese, I'm going to say that just because almighty Google couldn't find them doesn't mean they aren't there. The Steve 04:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing that an English language search engine isn't going to be the place to look up information for a 1990s Japanese video game company, I change my vote to keep. While I don't have immediate access to print material about Japanese video game companies, I will admire and respect the people who can find the Japanese print material that pertains to Lenar. GVnayR (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you have to believe that Japanese sources are likely to exist? Perhaps a listing on a site like MetaCritic that shows that a Japanese magazine had an article about the company? As I see it, we don't have sources, and we have no substantial evidence that they are likely to exist. The article has been tagged as requiring references since 2009. Any editor that had a serious belief that Japanese sources exist has had 3 years to find them or find evidence of their existence. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was starting to wonder whether this article was a hoax, and the company never existed (the Japanese wiki article for "Deadly Towers" says Irem both developed and released and I can hardly find anything on (Japanese) google) but then I found this in Japanese: http://famicon.s348.xrea.com/entries/19861215_masyou/ 126.25.72.235 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I own a boxed copy of Deadly Towers complete with the manual. On the back of the box it says, "(C) 1987 Broderbund Software, Inc. Programmed by IREM Corporation. Planning by Lenar." Oddly enough, the Deadly Towers article says Lenar did the programming and IREM published it. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, let me say that Lenar's wiki page was created by gvnayr, a Wikipedia obsessive editor who created (since 2006) wiki-pages about retro video games, vg-companies, but in fact he never knew/know what the hell he was/is doing... For example, if you check Takuyo or KAZe history, you will know what I'm talking about... I have a lot more to say about his edits but well... Most of the time I feel gvnayr is a "dangerous" wikipedian, few days ago I saw this (nothing to do with video games though): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doan%27s_Hollow_Public_School&diff=524576434&oldid=524576084 ...... he added the Katherine VanGoethem section, if you guys read the text... it's hilarious though lol, adding a member of his family, with some crazy info. Anyway, about Lenar, gvnayr just said: I will admire and respect the people who can find the Japanese print material that pertains to Lenar.. honestly gvnayr, people don't need your respect, just respect your own self as a Wikipedian by not adding crappy info on here... since 2006... it's been 6 years. Enough is enough. --89.214.111.176 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The company has been in existence since 1977. It was founded as UNIC, then became Lenar, and finally Astroll [1] in 1997 [2]. This article has no redeeming qualities in terms of encyclopedic value. The firm has market capitalization of just 10 million JPY. UNIC/Lenar/Astroll is unremarkable in any respect. Notability is not inherited by the company for any of these games it has developed, and the company itself is non-notable at present. I would push for Salting but it would be a waste of my time, just like reading the article was a waste of my time. This garbage article deserves AfD. Jun Kayama 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Any qualification for Keep based on inability to locate sources should not get a pass because "something probably exists in print". Japan is Top 5 in world publishing market [3] but for purpose of this AfD, this means nothing. Limitation of EN search engine is not reasonable excuse for garbage article to exist. JP search engine shows information which points to this article being inconsequential. The games should be listed, but UNIC/Lenar/Astroll? WP:NOTINHERITED. [P]arent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. Jun Kayama 18:56, 2 December 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.