Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wily & Right no RockBoard: That's 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 keep. --Core desat  22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wily & Right no RockBoard: That's Paradise

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A "suprefanicon" game without references that seems to be merely a mod/hack/whatever of a game. No indication that it is bought/downloaded/played or in any way significant, much less notable Utgard Loki 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - no sources, so no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Delete unless sources are added. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  13:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was an actual Japanese release that never quite made it to the states, not a hack or fangame.  It needs some sourcing and rewriting, as well as some fact-checking (the gambling elements weren't what kept it out of the states, it was mainly a lack of interest from American gamers and the fact the NES was pretty much dead by 1993), but the subject itself is valid for an article.  --UsaSatsui 12:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if the game never made the Anglophone world, is the article really proper here, instead of on the .jn -pedia? What drove me bonkers was that the thing was so darned gamecrufty.  It starts with all sorts of jargon that gamerz would know and that readers wouldn't, and then it goes on to want to give a feature list!  That's really a case of "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs" to me.  Utgard Loki 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows up occasionally in the English-speaking world, and I disagree that something can be notable in only one language. I agree with you that the article itself, for lack of a better word, sucks.  I'll try and improve it when I have some spare time.  --UsaSatsui 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the current state leaves much to be desired, I don't consider it good policy to delete something based on whether English people know about it. If that were the case, we've have to delete multiple things that are notable (i.e. Imperial Seal of Japan). And this is coming from a deletionist. ' 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Know about it?" It didn't get released in Anglophone nations.  Comparing an orphaned platform's single-nation game to the Sea of Japan is astonishing.  This is not a case of "know about it," but rather "had any effect of."  Describe some way in which this game affected anything except bank accounts.  Utgard Loki 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Describe how any individual game, English or not, affected anything but bank accounts. "It wasn't released here!" isn't a good enough reason to delete and this reasoning doesn't help our extensive bias towards English subjects, when we should be covering all notable things, whether they were only released in Japan or not. ' 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. An actual commercial release, likely reviewed in Japanese. We should probably merge this in paragraph-or-less form somewhere, though; it's kind of a footnote to a English-language encyclopedia unless someone who can read Japanese wants to write a proper article based on Japanese sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy keep An actual commercial release, it's a no brainer. (Djungelurban 21:21, 5 March 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.