Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokimeki Check-in!


 * 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. czar 07:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tokimeki Check-in!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Has already been PRODded. Lack of notability, unsourced, and was unable to find any sources to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found this review from IGN, but that is the only bit of significant coverage I could find, which alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. I also tried searching under the Japanese text, and also found nothing much.  There might be some Japanese print sources from the time it came out, but unless any are found, there is not enough coverage to support an article, and there do not appear any appropriate articles for a merge or redirect.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - How is the IGN review not enough to meet the WP:GNG? A review of a Japanese game from a major Anglophone outlet is likely a strong sign that the work in question will have received significant coverage in Japan, even if it isn't easily accessible online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the WP:GNG calls for multiple reliable sources in order to be met. Currently, only a single reliable source has been found, which does not meet that criteria.  As I stated, while there is a distinct possibility that there may be Japanese print sources available, unless those are found, we can't keep articles based on the argument that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. One review is not sufficient coverage for an article. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2021 (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.