Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadouken (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hadouken
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Mostly WP:CRUFTy, even if it's rather well-written cruft. No sources, and doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines outside of the series itself. Also, goes against the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Game Guide. This belongs on Gamefaqs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 06:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You really should have included Shoryuken in this nomination. I have no opinion right now. JuJube (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So be it. See Articles for deletion/Shoryuken. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that Shoryuken should be (or should've been) nom'd as well. I added the Hadouken image hoping that someone would see it and say "ooh, I've got a book that talks about that fireball thingy, it proves facts a and b you guys got there."  Clearly, no luck with that to date. I looked for reliable sources on Google and Yahoo (using the kanji and all sorts of English spellings), and none I found (if there even were any, which I doubt) were of any use in verifying the vast majority of claims (e.g. "the archetypal projectile attack in 2D fighting games", that it's a neologism, or even that two can cancel each other out).  FindArticles turns up nothing, save for stuff on the shockingly more-notable band.  (Maybe not shockingly, but then I live nowhere near Leeds.)

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the article's claims are true, and the rest are certainly plausible (to think I haven't seen them when playing a whole bunch of SF games or that I haven't laughed at Jago's Endokuken would be absurd). But even the obvious stuff is circumstantially shown, as opposed to verifiable, at best here—there's not even a cite of the game manual(s) that would certainly mention the move. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article, nor do I want it to be. Even if the move's presence in other games is trivially verified by playing the games, there's no commentary out there that shows the importance of the Hadouken (which does surprise me) short of that 8-Bit Theater thing. I think the various versions should, at most, be described in the articles of games with them and called examples of a special move in the games (and I'd be stunned if WP:GAMEGUIDE even allowed that). The rest can go in a knol or Wikibooks or somesuch—they're part of the internet too. :) --an odd name 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku, the "hurricane kick", should've been nom'd as well. --an odd name 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Street Fighter, and rather regretfully. I've tried to look for something on this that would make this notable (i.e. reliable sources), but came up with a blank, knowing very well this is one of the more popular terms in the fighting genre. Hopefully someone is more keen than me on this. MuZemike  ( talk ) 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as MuZemike says. Maybe someone will pull out their GamePros and find some "Ancient Secrets of the Quarter-Circle Plus Punch Button" article or something to draw on, but if it needs a print article to be notable (as seems the case) it'll take a while to find and I'd rather we redirect now and remake it later.  The permalink would still work (I hope) if anyone absolutely must see the Wikipedia logo next to a special attack. --an odd name 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect: There is virtually no information here that passes WP:NOT. (The "Varieties" section is clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE info since it goes into which fireballs are more powerful, which have multi-hits, and so on. The "other users" section has a ton of WP:OR, pointing to fireballs that might not have anything but a coincidental similarity to the SF2 one. The lead has stuff about "if you look closely at the fireball"... which is more WP:OR. So really, almost anything in here could be summed up in a few words, if any words at all.) That said, I'm actually not fully sure about notability. But I think redirecting makes sense, and people can split / rewrite the article once they find reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — I boldly propose a redirect of Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku to Street Fighter II without having to go to AFD. Please discuss at Talk:Street Fighter II. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Hadouken is so well-known, it's a taunt in Team Fortress 2 for crying out loud. It appears in Mega Man games, the Worms series, etc. It has jumped the boundaries of Street Fighter. WikiProject Videogames doesn't get to dictate what Wikipedia can and cannot cover. And no, this doesn't belong on Gamefaqs, because this article is virtually useless as a gameguide. Rwiggum, how about you look for sources before nominating an article for deletion, like WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE recommend? WikiProject Videogames has helpfully made a list of print magazines that members have at WikiProject Video games/Magazines. --Pixelface (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As others have said, there just aren't any reliable sources that would constitute substantial coverage of the Hadouken itself. I DID look before nominating, and I couldn't find anything. And just because it isn't a good game guide doesn't mean it is a good article. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you look? What gaming magazines do you own from the early 90s? Do you have a subscription to Lexis Nexis? Since January, this article has consistently been viewed over 20,000 times each month.          It appears that Wikipedia readers find the Hadouken worthy of notice. --Pixelface (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's Page hits are not a valid case for notability. Bring on the sources, please. --an odd name 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Copying comment from the Shoryuken AFD) Please stay on point and concentrate on the merits of the article and not the nom by making ad hominem remarks and assuming bad faith on other editors. I've already went through the cursory google search as well as Gnews. I come up with a blank; that is, no significant coverage on the move itself, discounting the fact that several websites and blogs use the name. Hence, in my view, your claim of notability is nothing more than a claim/assertion. The method and variations sections scream game guide material. Bottom line, if you claim this move is surely notable, then prove it instead of bashing other users of not doing so when they have already tried. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: Since Pixelface would rather bash other editors and overwrite their very relevant talk messages, how about we give him or her a few days to find sources from LexisNexis their damn self, with no help from us. That seems more than fair after such amazingly uncivil behavior. --an odd name 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)  Struck per last edit by MuZemike.  Sorry, Pixelface! --an odd name 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Pixelface. Yes this article isn't perfect, but I think it has enough worth to warrent a good short article. --Jza84 | Talk  19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Hadoken is notable enough to have its own article. Elessar (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove it then! If you got sources making it so, put 'em in. --an odd name 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect per MuZemike. Gamecruft and has not been verified to be important to a real world audience. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (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.