Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Raper


 * 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 Illusion (company). There doesn't seem to be the coverage to support an article, so the keeps have less weight. I would suggest redirecting Battle Raper (series) and Battle Raper 2 with no pressing need to take them to AfD first. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle Raper

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Seriously? I can't even believe this article exists in the first place. Battle Raper is a non-notable game, where the objective is to "strip, grope, and sometimes actively rape the female character." It lacks non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable third party publications. Merry Christmas, JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect the nom may be correct. I find a passing mention in a conference paper  a journal article I can't access at the moment, and the other hits in Google Scholar and News are foreign language ones.  LexisNexis news search finds just four articles with passing mentions.  Haven't gone through all web search results, there is more substantial coverage on the blog of the American Sociological Association's magazine Contexts. Unless there are some other sources hiding out there (maybe video game or feminist publications), at most this could just be mentioned in Video game controversy.  Any reason why you didn't bundle Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) into this AfD? Шизомби (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response comment I am finding the same passing coverage that you are, but nothing substantial as of yet. I am not a huge fan of bundling nominations, but if this gets deleted I will probably nominate the others eventually unless someone beats me to it.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "Battle Raper" has been mentioned frequently in connection with objectionable Japanese video games. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with censorship. Notability and verifiability are the primary concerns. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep it has had some third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Google news archive articles appear to be mainly passing mentions in the context of Amazon.com banning Rapelay, another game by the same developer, unless the foreign ones have more. The question for me is, are there enough RS and enough significant coverage to be able to write a reasonably detailed article, even just a short one, even if all the Battle Raper WP articles are merged? Merging and redirecting into the developer Illusion (company) and mentioning in the Video game controversy I could support. Шизомби (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response comment I looked at the Google News search you're referring to. The "third party coverage" you refer to is laughable only because it is not really coverage at all.  It barely qualifies as a passing mention.  I admit, I can't read any of the non-English language articles so if you're seeing some non-trivial coverage in another language that I cannot read please explain yourself here, otherwise you are not really citing any worthwhile coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep /merge - Between Battle Raper, Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) there's at least one article too many for the relatively few sources available, probably two. Doing a merge either way would result in an article at Battle Raper. Nifboy (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response comment Uhhh. Wait, what?  This feels more like a walled garden than anything.  Which "few sources" are you referring to? JBsupreme (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The few sources mentioned above that generally use it in the same sentence as Rapelay. I hesitate to simply !vote delete/redirect based on the lack of English-language sources, but am unable to give it its due diligence. Nifboy (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I had the reaction I expect a lot of gamers will have: "wait, that's infamous, there must be sources.." Actually there isn't, neither in the article or coming up from a search. The only thing I can come up with is a few mentions in the news results, all of which basically say "in BR the player has to beat up and rape women." That's hardly the basis for an article. I found no strong results for BR2 either (which would just as easily come up from a search for "Battle Raper"), the other articles should be bundled as suggested by Schizombie. Totally non-notable beyond a passing mention in any video games shock horror type article. Happy new year. Someoneanother 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Illusion (company). This is verifiable, but not notable. Marasmusine (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rapelay is apparently not the same game as Battle Raper.-- Pink Bull  04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even close. From what I can tell, Battle Raper is a near 1:1 rip off of Soul Calibur, not that that makes it more or less notable or anything.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Battle Raper is mentioned in the linked Telegraph story. True, the only information that can be extracted is "Illusion made a game called Battle Raper", but that's all we need for it to be verified in the list of games at Illusion's article, and for this to be redirected there. And thats the last time I want to write the word Raper. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.