Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Remembrance


 * 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. -- jonny - m t  05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True Remembrance

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete not notable per WP:BOOK or WP:WEB. Seems more like a WP:ADVERT. Moreover, the article doesn't actually state what this thing actually is confusing "novel" with "game." Non-notable game. Seems more like an advertisement. At the very least it fails WP:CORP as being released by a non-notable company. Ave Caesar (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)/s
 * Comment I am afraid you are the one confusing visual novel with something else since you failed to even read the article linked in the first sentence. Neither WP:BOOK nor WP:WEB applies since it is a game. No comment on keeping or deleting. _dk (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid I have to disagree. First of all, the current claim, WP:CORP, is totally unrelated; the article is about a game, not a company, and it isn't even made by a company; it was made by a single person (with some help from other people, but it isn't a company). WP:WEB states "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content". True Remembrance was only distributed through the internet, so I think WP:WEB applies here. So there are three ways in which the article can be notable:
 * We need enough sources; or
 * We need to prove that True Remembrance has won awards; or
 * True Remembrance has been distributed through a respected and independant medium
 * Number 3 isn't the case here, AFAIK, so we'll have to go with either number 1 or number 2. VDZ (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral Normally, if the game was released by a sanctioned company (or at least a notable dōjin group), I would say keep, but since the game is from what appears to be a non-notable group (and I fail to see the apparent notability of the game therein) I'm neutral, but believe that the reasons Ave Caesar gave for the proposed deletion of the article are wrong and should not be taken into account in this AfD per Deadkid's comment above.--  十  八  10:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - What, no response since the day it was nominated? (Not even on the VN taskforce talk page :\) Anyways, this Japanese article seems pretty reliable, and it has lots of info. There's also this news post and this news post, but I'm not sure of that's reliable and non-trivial enough. Most info on the game is in Japanese, though, and for someone who doesn't speak Japanese, it's difficult to find the right sources. Can someone who does speak Japanese please help? VDZ (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Delete One or two Japanese publicity releases don't make for meaningful independent coverage or significance. I see no evidence of notability here. Don't know why I can't see notability in this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Found another source, with an interview. Also, according to WP:WEB, a couple of Japanese publicity released do make something notable: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. VDZ (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here's a website that's probably both respected and independent of the creators that distributes the work. As a side note, there's also quite a few pages of results of Google search, too. And a wood (I don't care but there's a pile) pile of reviews (or what I consider to be more like reviews), something I can't even find for True Tears.  --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  06:04, 4 June 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.