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 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrhythm Final Fantasy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of this future release, also per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) *Delete (In its current state) As the article is written right now, it is only a product announcement and therefor fails WP:CRYSTAL. If more information would be added aside from the release date it would satisfy notability requirements. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Time for an article if and when it attains some coverage beyond an announcement of intention to release it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability test and WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability test. May change later. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:18, 7 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly notable; this can be verified by a simple Google search, showing up Andriasang, GamePro, Kotaku, Wired, Shacknews, Siliconera, MetroWNY, 1UP.com, Gamesetwatch, GameSpot, and Eurogamer. People are way too quick to delete things without fixing them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying "This is clearly notable; this can be verified by a simple Google search", without telling us what suitable sources are found in that Google search, is not enough. I have searched on Google and failed to find reliable sources. If you have found reliable sources then please tell us where. Merely telling us that sources can be found, without specifying where, does not help us. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some to the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you have added consists of links to blog posts. You have also added a smaller number of links to announcements on various game-fan sites of questionable solidity, many of which say little more than that there is an announcement that the game will appear, but nobody knows when. My favourite among the "references" you have added is this one, which just says that the trademark "Theatrhythm" has been registered in Europe and North America by a Japanese company, but that nothing is known about what it refers to. Scarcely powerful evidence of notability. All in all the "references" you have added look exactly like what you would have come up with if you had been determined to find references to show notability, and had just indiscriminately added links to the first few dozen Google hits you found. They do not look like the sort of thing that I would have produced if I had searched to try and find whether or not there was evidence of notability, and carefully checked each one to determine how valid it was before deciding whether it was suitable to use as a reference. Unfortunately none of the links you have provided go very far towards showing notability, and if after making some effort to search that is the best you have managed, then it encourages my doubts that there are suitable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those links are reliable sources as determined by WP:VG. The source you mention only states that the trademark was made because that is what it is sourcing in the article. It is not trying to do anything else other then that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Blake here stated, the purpose of the link is to demonstrate the game's history, not the game's notability. Looking at the blog posts, Kotaku is identified as a reliable source for all articles in 2010 and later; Andriasang is run by Anoop Gantayat, a regular contributor to major video game websites such as IGN; of course, IGN itself; 1UP.com is also regarded as a reliable source. I mean, if you'd like more, I could also give you the links from Pocket Gamer, Digital Spy, Gamasutra, MCV, Nintendo World Report, and numerous others. Honestly, there is no case of crystal balling, there is plenty of coverage - in ways such as development and reception - and it's no longer a stub. It's silly to suggest deletion at this point. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot of sourced information has been added since it's nomination. Looks like another instance of people being too quick to delete because it's easier to nominate than put any work into the article... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hippie saves yet another article by finding many sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which is good except they could use ((Cite web)) or similar so the article remains verifiable in the future (and looks better than a bunch of bare URLs), I cleaned up the first few but it’s easier just doing it when adding them and doesn't take long either. --sss333 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per New Age Retro Hippie and Sergecross73. — Bl ue 。 04:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the articles. My initial delete !vote was because the article had no content other than an announcement of the game. Now that the content has been improved it should be kept. Ryan Vesey contribs 15:49, 14 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.