Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky Third Chapter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky Third Chapter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fancruft-filled and I do not see a claim to significance. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is a The Legend of Heroes and a Trails in the Sky articles in existence, so at worst, it should be a redirect or merge. Deletion isn't the right route for something with multiple logical redirect targets. Haven't done searching to see if there's enough out there for a "Keep". Sergecross73   msg me  02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky - Along with the two other games in this sub-series, there is sufficient notability, but I doubt there are enough sources for standalone articles. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't advocate that for the first two. I created the second one - it's received a ton of coverage because they're translating it to English, and it's pretty much the last English PSP game. Definitely doesn't warrant a merge. The first one was translated and released already, and definitely has enough coverage. (http://www.metacritic.com/game/psp/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky ) Sergecross73   msg me  20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good rescue work by Sergecross73. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable third party sources. (It also goes by the subtitle "The Third", or "Sora No Kiseki", it's Japanese name, FYI.)
 * http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/loh/loh6.htm
 * http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/15/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky-the-third-hd-edition-set-for-june-on-ps3/
 * http://gematsu.com/2013/03/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky-the-3rd-hd-edition-announced-for-playstation-3
 * http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/21/4012678/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky-trilogy-coming-to-windows-8-in
 * http://www.siliconera.com/2014/01/14/falcom-will-put-legend-heroes-trails-sky-3rd-psplus-japan/
 * http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2013-03-16/legend-of-heroes/trails-in-the-sky-3-goes-hd-on-ps3
 * http://dengekionline.com/elem/000/000/613/613238/
 * http://www.polygon.com/forums/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky/2012/12/16/3773140/wth-is-trails-in-the-sky-an-introduction-to-the-trails-series
 * http://www.siliconera.com/2012/09/27/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky-psp-vs-playstation-3/ Sergecross73   msg me  00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've entirely rewritten the article, and reworked many sources into the article. It's still not great, but its a far cry from the bare-bones, unreferenced version at the time of nomination. Sergecross73   msg me  16:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as User:Sergecross73 has added a large number of RS to the article and there is no longer any doubt that it meets the GNG. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A case of what to do before coming to AfD. While the sourcing wasn't available in a WP:VG/RS search alone, there is certainly significant coverage for the general notability guideline with the expanded search terms (except that Polygon forums link, which should be struck as user-generated and unreliable). However, the sourcing is hella weak, with not nearly enough for a full-featured article as of now. As such, I would recommend a merge to the series article when the editors are ready. As for this AfD, the consensus is a clear keep with a notice to the nominator to consider redirection to a quality redirect target (the series) before engaging AfD. czar ♔   16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, hadn't noticed the forum link. It didn't look like it when I looked at it on a mobile phone. Oh well, I don't believe I ever used it in the actual article clean up. And yeah, I was going to say something to the nominator, but it looks like he's been warned up and down his talk page about flawed deletion nominations...so I didn't bother, I think he probably knows by now. Sergecross73   msg me  19:47, 6 September 2014 (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.