Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Fighter 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 no consensus. At the least, it appears reasonable to argue that the game is notable within the context of a particular regional culture. Xoloz 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Little Fighter Online

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been around for over two years, but still has no apparent notability, and does not cite a single independent source. I would have tried an A7 on it, but as it's been around for so long this seems more appropriate.  Mi re ma re  22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions.  Mi re ma re  22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable, verifiable third party sources.  Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It would be geographical bias to delete. I know no Chinese, but it is obvious, after a quick Google on the Chinese name, that this is a big thing in countries using that language. It seems to have been professionally reviewed as well - in Chinese. Request someone who knows the language to look at this article, do not delete. --User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Playing the race card in an AFD discussion? What happened to WP:AGF? --Aarktica 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure I don't have to point out that Google results do not equal notability - many online games have lots of Google hits but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Whatever language the game is in is irrelevant; we can't go keeping every article about something in another language simply because we don't know the language and it might be notable. The burden of proof is on the article, and it simply does not assert, let alone prove, notability.  Mi re ma re  13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is as good an argument as any in response to the occasional AfD contention that we shouldn't delete stuff if we don't know enough of a foreign language to determine whether or not it's actually notable. Ford MF 05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete due to lack of attribution of notability to independent sources, per Miremare. I'm sure that Krator was merely referring to systemic bias rather than "playing the race card", but that doesn't trump WP:V and WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Miremare. Ford MF 05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There's a review on the games section of TOM Online (news/portal site) as well as a few others from Taiwan and mainland sites . cab 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dhartung. (Assuming good faith)--Aarktica 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - per the links provided by cab; I ran them through Babel Fish Translation and roughly speaking they seem to be genuine coverage (and not just directory listings, blogs or the like), I can give the benefit of the doubt. However, this coverage will need to be represented in the article somehow, so will need some help with translation. Marasmusine 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I wouldn't say that three pages is enough to prove notability, and that third page appears to me to be some kind of promotion for the game, though Babelfish isn't too brilliant here. But anyway, the fact is, we don't even know what these pages say. If the article is kept and these are the sources, how can it possibly be referenced? Surely for an English encyclopedia you need some sources in English, so that they can be checked by the reader? That's the whole point of providing sources.  Mi re ma re  16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Providing sources that none of the article contributors can actually read is somewhat dishonest and irresponsible on our part.  Ford MF 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment. its parent game: Little Fighter, was deleted before.SYSS Mouse 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Dhartung said it best so far. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm with User:Krator. The game is only available in Chinese - so no websites or news sources for an English audience would ever review it. This means that only someone who understands Chinese can look for sources in Chinese web/news search engines - and it seems User:CaliforniaAliBaba could add the references he found to the article (maybe with one-line English summaries). If there's doubt about the accuracy of such references, always should be possible to find someone Chinese speaking to double-check. Also, e.g.  claims in English that the game won the Hong Kong Digital Entertainment Excellence Awards award as Best Computer / TV Entertainment Software in 2005 - would they really give this to a non notable game? --Allefant 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment that would probably depend on whether or not it's a notable award. Also, the accuracy is not the only concern with the sources - the reliability of the sources, for an English-speaking audience, is also difficult, if not impossible, to gauge. I'm not really comfortable with providing references (not that it does!) to a Chinese site from an English article and expecting the reader to just trust us (or whoever added it) on what it says. I've come across enough references in articles that have little if anything to do with what they're supposed to be confirming, or have been misinterpreted by whoever added them, and these are in English! This would be an insurmountable problem if we were to use Chinese sources, IMO.  Mi re ma re  18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, not sure how notable it is myself either - the event itself is mentioned in Entertainment Expo Hong Kong and seems to be rather big according to google, but I couldn't navigate to any mention of awarding this game on their official site - someone who understands Chinese would need to dig up info on the award and add it to the article, together with a proper (likely Chinese) reference. And I agree, it's bad if you can't yourself access a reference - but if someone can double check it, I think it is fine (really should be no problem on Wikipedia asking someone who understands Chinese). There's lots of other references in articles I regularly encounter and am not able to check easily (e.g. articles you need to pay for to view, or books I don't own) - so need to just trust they are ok, as not even automatic translators can be used in such cases. Should be no reason to delete in any case, especially if like here it's clearly no advertisement or original research or other such stuff. --Allefant 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- The game on which this is based, is chinese-based, but a search on download.com, reveals that Little Fighter 2, the parent of this game, is a top download. Somewhat popular with certain people in North America, this game is also a hit in Asian countries. Somewhat notable, but meets WP:NOT.  Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment From what my googling turned up, Little Fighter 1 and 2 were two popular freeware games written by a student, and the games then spawned the commercial Little Fighter Online. Would of course be nice if someone could add all that info to the article (with sources). --Allefant 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems fairly notable, but not outside Hong Kong... Fin©™ 12:11, 22 August 2007 (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.