Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Hopper


 * 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 no consensus. When weighing the arguments, I seem to lean towards a "keep" closure, but the points brought forward by Czar, NARH and Johnny aren't exactly dismissable either, so I'll close as NC (hoping Serge's sources will be used for the article), but with no objection if later consensus on the talk page is to redirect the title. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Hopper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, NBD. :) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Virtual Boy games as a valid search term., this looks straightforward, so how would you feel about withdrawing the deletion nom for a redirect? (Such solutions are better outcomes to pursue before coming to AfD.) czar ⨹   10:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like Nintendo Power. See here. 1up.com, a reliable source, covered it a bit, and suggested that Nintendo Power had even written a review for the game, according to this. This fansite seems to suggest it made appearances in a bunch of other print magazines at the time as well. I think this just barely scrapes above the WP:GNG.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar ⨹   22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73   msg me  12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as barely meeting notability per the above. I did a quick search for Japanese sources and didn't find anything. I'm sure it was covered in Famitsu and other trade magazines, but their articles are not available online. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we not make "there must be sources" arguments? Let's try to find these external reviews before we keep based on their supposed existence and then no one ever does the sleuthing to find them. If we can also keep in mind the game wasn't actually released, so the existence of these reviews (Famitsu's for example) will have been a fluke—more unlikely than not. czar ⨹   12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we not dismiss something about which you obviously know very little? Famitsu and other trade magazines often have articles on games 1-2 years before they come out. They'll have announcement articles, productions articles, and even articles about a project which has been shut down. I never said there would be reviews, but simply articles about the game. I saw these kinds of articles all the time when I lived in Japan. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar ⨹   15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles are kept on the basis of sourcing potential all the time, especially when there is reason to believe that they're out there but we haven't found th all yet, the prime example being games of the early/mid 90s, when nothing's online and it's hard to track down print sources. Sergecross73   msg me  01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'd like to think that I've been following the vg AfD beat for a while now and I can't call recall a single AfD that was kept on the basis that coverage must exist somewhere, or that a Nintendo Power review may or may not exist and that Famitsu must have some non-English coverage. In fact, I haven't heard of articles being kept based on their potential for sourcing rather than what has actually been confirmed to exist (which is why "sources must exist" is at WP:ATA). I'm willing to even help look for coverage but we have zero leads that this other stuff exists. What are the chances that any editor will reasonably be willing to put in more effort than that? This article will have been kept at AfD and remain unsourced despite being non-notable. czar ⨹   02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, if the article is kept, it'd be because a nationally published, well-known, reliable source magazine did a 2 page article on it, and that people reasonably assumed that somewhere out there in the world, there's a second print source out there to make it meet the "multiple sources" aspect of the GNG. (Not to mention, the various brief mentions out there.) Also, I've been commenting at AFD for at least as long as you have as well - I know there's precent for my stance as well. I'll have to do some digging to find some examples... Sergecross73   msg me  02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73 . I think it squeaks by. Pax 00:25, 6 May 2015 (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.