Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberdimension Neptunia: 4 Goddesses Online


 * 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 speedy keep. Nominator made incorrect rationale of WP:ASSERTN. Many sources shown to exist for potential article expansion. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberdimension Neptunia: 4 Goddesses Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not credibly state notability/no citations. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  15:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The game has received a ton of reliable source coverage. Not even a close call. Complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Siliconera has five dedicated sources.
 * Over twenty dedicated sources by Gematsu. Sergecross73   msg me  16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was the third best-selling video game in the nation during its release week in Japan. Sergecross73   msg me  16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: provisionally. This is a good-faith nomination but I think a quick Google search reveals that the game is clearly notable.  Sources exist, but they need adding.  If somebody adds them then I'm for keeping but if it stays in its current state then it's better off deleted.  Yeah, deletion isn't cleanup but if cleanup never happens then deletion is the only alternative.    Dr Strauss   talk   16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think it was bad-faith, just a lack of BEFORE/NOTCLEANUP going on. Its in rough shape now, but there's realistic reason to believe it'll be cleaned up - its part of a series, and other entries are reasonably developed. It's not out in English yet - so when it is, it'll probably get a new wave of interest. Sergecross73   msg me  16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No citations is not the same as citations/sources not existing. Large amount of easily located coverage. Nom's rationale sounds like it's meant to suggest a CSD A7-esque reasoning, but there is no A7 for video games. AFD needs to argue based on policy. It appears to pass WP:GNG easily. I've done a quick application of general article guidelines for video games and will see about expanding some later today. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The article title and the article content did not match. There are two games, and both appear notable, but the article content as it started was under the wrong name. Serge has replaced the current content with the correct details. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough third-party sources exist, but Lord, the article needs work. sixty nine   • speak up •  16:31, 31 August 2017 (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.