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 redirect to Street Fighter II. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoryuken[edit]

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

Mostly WP:CRUFTy, even if it's rather well-written cruft. No sources, and doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines outside of the series itself. Also, goes against the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Game Guide. This belongs on Gamefaqs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In universe, plot summary, trivia, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced, quite possibly WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Street Fighter II. Fails both WP:N and WP:NOT because of lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability as well as consisting of nothing but in-universe WP:GAMEGUIDE material and unnecessary trivia. Plausible search term, however. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — I boldly propose a redirect of related article Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku to Street Fighter II without having to go to AFD. Please discuss at Talk:Street Fighter II#Merge/redirect proposal.
• Keep, this isn't "cruft." Now the cruft article, that's cruft. Have you ever considered the idea that WP:CRUFT and the notability guidelines and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE are rulecruft? This isn't a gameguide. If you don't want the article to explain the sequence, remove it. This is notable. Do you seriously think that Shoryuken has not been written about in any magazines or on any websites? Anyone who has played a game in the Street Fighter franchise, which has sold over 25 million copies, knows what a Shoryuken is. Deleting this article doesn't make Wikipedia any better. And it's obviously a plausible search term, so it should at least be a redirect, but it doesn't just appear in Street Fighter II. Your plug of Gamefaqs doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rwiggum, from May 2006 to February 2008 you had a total of 14 edits. You didn't edit at all from January 22, 2007 to February 11, 2008. Do have another username on Wikipedia? --Pixelface (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So let me get this straight - I nominate an article for deletion, and your response is to accuse me of sockpuppeting? To answer your question, I simply did not start editing seriously until recently. Surely that's not such a rare occurence. But in response to your other assertions, it's clear that you're grasping at straws. "Rulecruft"? Really? And simply being part of a successful game does not make this move notable. Notability is not inherited. The move has to be notable on it's own APART from the game in order to comply with notability guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a simple question. Care to answer it? And WP:ATA is an essay. The move has to be notable apart from the game in order to comply with notability guidelines? Oh really? No, no it doesn't. Where did you come up with that? The notability guidelines, not policies, say topics should be notable. Notable. Do you know what that word means? If 25 million people know what a Shoryuken is, you conclude it's not notable? --Pixelface (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and are Mega Man X2, Mega Man X4, Mega Man X8, and Shrek all Street Fighter games? --Pixelface (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The same argument could be made about the 1UP Mushroom from the Mario games. Even MORE people know that than they do moves from Street Fighter, so does that deserve it's own article? No, it doesn't, because it isn't notable outside of the game itself. I would suggest including this information at Giant Bomb's site, as this kind of information is more suited for that kind of site, not here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no consensus to delete Mushroom_(Mario) nearly one year ago today. So yeah, it looks like plenty of people thought it deserved its own article. It was nominated for deletion by Chardish on November 27, 2007 and the discussion closed with no consensus on December 6, 2007. Then Chardish redirected it on February 10, 2008. Shoryuken is notable outside the game. Go to any arcade and ask people if they know what it is. Go to the World Cyber Games and ask people if they know what it is. Go just about anywhere online and ask people if they know what it is. Nothing "deserves" an article. And why would it need to be notable "apart" from the game in the first place? Does Ralph Wiggum need to be notable apart from The Simpsons? No. --Pixelface (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Policy states that an article requires verifiable third-party references for notability to be established. That is, sources that aren't in-universe, that are apart from the source material. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • (multiple edit conflicts) Please stay on point and concentrate on the merits of the article and not the nom by making ad hominem remarks and assuming bad faith on other editors. I've already went through the cursory google search as well as Gnews. I come up with a blank; that is, no significant coverage on the move itself, discounting the fact that several websites and blogs use the name. Hence, in my view, your claim of notability is nothing more than a claim/assertion. The method and variations sections scream game guide material. Bottom line, if you claim this move is surely notable, then prove it instead of bashing other users of not doing so when they have already tried. MuZemike (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't made any ad hominem remarks. I asked Rwiggum if he has another username. It's a valid question. Oh, so you looked on Google? Have you looked through any print magazines? Any gaming magazines? Of course my claim of notability is my opinion — that's all notability is, an opinion. In order for something to be "worthy of notice", there has to be a person doing the noticing. No humans on Earth, no notability. Notability is not some objective truth that you discover. It's a subjective opinion. It's a perception. You can't "prove" that something is notable. Just like you can't "prove" it's non-notable. That's like asking someone to prove that Street Fighter II is "cool." How about you look for "significant coverage" of "notability" and make notability a decent article? The opinion of whether something is worthy of notice varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time. Do people who have played Street Fighter II or any game in the series after that think the Shoryuken is notable? Yes. So that's at least 25 million people. Do members of the Kombai tribe think the Shoryuken is notable? Probably not. This article has been viewed at least 8,500 times per month since January (including over 20,000 times in August). It appears that the readers of Wikipedia think the Shoryuken is worthy of notice. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Any other worthless essays you'd like to mention? --Pixelface (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. Don't be a dick. MuZemike (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: there might be some coverage by reliable third-parties, but it appears to be all trivial: telling us what we already know. That it's a well-known move in Street Fighter 2. I'm not sure what else you could write about it that isn't original research. This article is rampant with speculation, with similarities to uppercuts that might not take zero inspiration from SF2. It goes into WP:GAMEGUIDE information about the strength of different uppercuts. And I simply haven't seen any sources that suggest the article can be improved. I suggest a redirect until someone can WP:PROVEIT that there's more verifiable information on this phenomenon. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per following rational based on Randomran's !vote: As article is written in such a way as to communicate what is already known, I would think said information is already in any article that would be appropriate for redirect or merge. Therefore, delete strikes me as the perfect solution. However, I would not oppose a redirect or merge. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. In absence of such notability, inappropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, aka cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is quite ridiculously iconic. There should be no problems with verifiability (verification, possibly, but that's an editing matter) and if the rules say that this is not significant enough then the rules are in the wrong. We all know that WP is not nearly good enough at making rules to eliminate the occasional need for discretion. --Kizor 01:27, 13 December 2008 (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.