Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gon (video game)


 * 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. Redirecting may be further discussed on the article's talk page, but closed as 'keep' lacking support for deletion. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gon (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-Notable video game Codf1977 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is currently very poor, not even bothering to mention what system the game is on (Super Famicom, not actually Super Nintendo as there was no US release), but general precedent is that nearly all released cartridge games from that era get articles. I'll clean it up a bit. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Official video game released for the Super Nintendo and is therefore notable per past precedent. We will not change precedent today just because a notable subject is not expanded. There is no deadline. Rationale is weak. Vodello (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Playing devils advocate here, if the subject is notable then it needs to be expanded so as to establish said notability. I don't see that this article has done that. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think it's notable, but I still advocate keeping because it fits within the framework of precedent to keep previous official released cartridge games as well as our generally very broad video game coverage. When one really thinks about it, extremely few video games are genuinely notable in any real sense, aside from a small handful that become part of broader popular culture (Pac-Man, Mario, Pokemon, perhaps Halo).  We cover the rest not because they're truly notable but because readers clearly expect us to, and since sources do exist there's no danger in doing so (as there is in covering non-notable BLPs, for example).  If we strictly applied notability criteria to our video game aricles we'd lose about 99.99% of them overnight, which wouldn't result in a better encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gon (manga) I am in favour of keeping all game articles (unless merging is more suitable) if they pass the notability hurdle in terms of reliable sourcing, or are very likely to be sourceable at some point (which is the idea behind tending to keep cartridge-based game articles regardless in a lot of cases). However, when it comes to Japanese-only games we are often left with articles that are not only unsourced but often unsourceable. In this case the information is already housed within the manga article, the only reliable sourcing here confirms that the game was released for the SNES in Japan on 11/11/94, which can just as easily be written-up in the manga article. Someoneanother 04:12, 9 June 2010 (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.