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 Delete. I am willing to userfy the article for any editor(s) interested in improving it for future submission. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Nikki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yume Nikki on notability grounds. The game unfortunately is in the same position, I've been unable to find the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to demonstrate that notability. To put it another way, there's nothing to build the article with apart from a few database entries. Someone another 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, Someoneanother. Is there nothing I can do to save the article? The presence of one would have been of great use to me when I was learning about the game and I've already steered lots of friends onto it. If it's simply a matter of altering the 'was noted' for parts, consider it done.

(It's never that simple, is it...) --!MNc99 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does suck, I didn't like nominating it at all after you've put such effort in, but unless you've got some ideas on where to get some additional sources it's stuck in the same boat. With game articles notability is basically about there being enough 'reception' to actually make an article which looks at the game itself and how it was received. It's not that the article just needs to be edited (articles which can be fixed shouldn't be nominated for deletion), it's whether or not enough information is out there to actually cover the game and create a reception section. This free game pick on indiegames.com, this post on Insert Credit and this TIGDB entry are the only things that came up before, out of which only the indiegames.com one was of any use, and it's a small 'post' rather than a full-blown review. The only other thing that has popped up is this TIGsource post: [1], of which only the first two paragraphs actually contain data, it's nowhere near enough (IMO). Compare them to this Mallet Mania review on Jay is Games, really it needs two reviews of that size (because they're in-depth they actually analyze the game) or several smaller ones which at least give an opinion on the game. Someone another 09:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, despite the effort, the article has no reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it's up to the powers-that be to decide. I just wish it could star around if for no other reason than becuase people are discovering this game-- especially now, since the translation has been released-- and it would be good if there was some comprehensive information about. Your points, however, are salient. Do what you have to. --!MNc99 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was this translation released, is it a recent occurence or awhile back? If the article is deleted, it can be brought back at a later date if sources do surface (deletion just papers over the article, it isn't lost). Another contributor has used LexisNexis to look for coverage of the game in magazines, which has drawn a blank. It could be worth nudging gaming sites to see if they're interested in covering the game, several have game submission options, particularly if this translation has hit after the sources above covered the game. Someone another 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:19, 17 September 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.