Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onee-san to Issho! Janken Paradise


 * 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   delete. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Onee-san to Issho! Janken Paradise

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AfDs for this article: 



This article fails to establish its notability by providing significant coverage in reliable media that are independent of the subject, since the given sources only provide passing mentions. This article has once survived an AfD (Articles for deletion/Janken Paradise) with the promise that it is going to be expanded within two month. Two years have passed since then and the article is at present far from notable. Fleet Command (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article does not assert notability. RadManCF (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no real sources. The citation to GameSpot is empty. --Bejnar (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep You seem to be nominating a lot of pornographic video game articles. I added a link to a review at Gamefaqs I found to the article.  It got a full page writeup at a notable game site.  If anyone knows any valid Japanese review or news sources, please search for the game in that as well, it sure to have some mention.   D r e a m Focus  20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection Your source does not offer what you assert. It's reliability is also rejected by WikiProject Video games/Sources Fleet Command (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No. I have nominated a lot of articles recently but you seem to be only patrolling porn ones. My criteria for nomination is not their porn nature. However, your criteria for voting Keep seems to be either their pornographic nature or just defying me. You have attempted a lot of tricks recently. Fleet Command (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't mean to be confrontational, but please WP:AGF. Let's stick to policy and facts and leave the ad hominem stuff out. You are correct, FleetCommand that this is not a game of trickery or of defying other editors, but disagreement is different than defiance. We're all here to build consensus through discussion. If you have the facts on your side then it should be easy to defend your position on pure content grounds without any reference to the contributor. That goes for all parties obviously. I feel things are getting unduly heated here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, Thibbs. I will try to assume more good faith in others. However, regrettably, I find assuming good faith in Dream Focus an extremely trying task. Fleet Command (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It says Gamefaq can be used when its editorial staff is doing the review. Isn't that what I linked to?  And the four articles I found with you nominating, are all on the list of video game related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it says "Should only be used for release data." I'm going to assume that you have merely read the wrong entry and were not trying to misrepresent the facts. As for my nomination, I have recently nominated 16 articles for deletion and like I said, you encountered the pornographic ones only because you were paroling pornographic parts of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am patrolling those that were on the "list of video game related deletion discussions", which at times I do have a look at.   D r e a m Focus  12:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete From the guidelines, regarding GameFAQs: "Should only be used for release data." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:19, 11 March 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.