Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Day (video game)


 * 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. Standards on the English Wikipedia are different from those of the Japanese Wikipedia, so just because one Wikipedia has an article does not mean another Wikipedia must also have one. Kurykh (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

X-Day (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no references to reliable sources, and it doesn't make a claim of notability. It's creator declined PROD without resolving these concerns. KSFT (t 12:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I managed to add several sources earlier and reference to the series' soundtrack. Namcokid47~765 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namcokid47 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any comments on the sources added after the start of this AfD?
 * Delete - Per nom. I tried searching for sources online and came up with nothing useful.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Found no coverage in reliable video game sources, so this fails WP:NVG. The 3 sources in the article are clearly unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I managed to edit the article so that is explains how the game is played and that I have added several reliable sources. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A google search for 余命検索サービス X-DAY gets about 18,400 hits. I wouldn't rule out that there are independent reliable sources among those pages, but the first ten hits do not qualify as independent reliable sources in my opinion and I'm not interested in going through the entire set. Anyway, it's really up to those who wish to keep the page to prove that such sources exist.
 * I don't know what checks the others have done when they established that there hasn't been any coverage in reliable sources. Given that the article states that the game only was released in Japan, I hope that you didn't only check for coverage in occidental reliable sources. When something only is available in Japan, the vast majority of the coverage is typically in Japanese sources. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep there is reception, no need for removal. Shaddim (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If by "reception", you mean significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources, could you provide evidence of that? KSFT  (t 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It sounds like the argument wants the article to be deleted because it is poorly written, not for it lacking sources. On a related note, the article clearly states the game was released in Japan, so I'm questioning the individual who nominated the page for deletion if they even searched for Japanese sources on the game since, again, it was only released in Japan. I would further bring up that the Japanese Wikipedia features an article for this game, so there's really no reason for the English Wikipedia to lack a page for it. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if you assume the article on Japanese Wikipedia should not also be deleted (which is quite an assumption), its existence has no bearing on whether we should have an article for it on English Wikipedia. The rest of your post is just baseless accusations that other editors have not properly searched for sources. Even if your accusations were true, that still wouldn't answer why you can't find any sources to support the article's notability. Wikipedia, an online store listing, and a screenshot do not serve to establish notability; we need to see significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When did I say that I assumed the Japanese Wikipedia shouldn't be deleted? I only stated that it would make sense for the English Wikipedia to have an article that is already on the Japanese Wikipedia, I never said to not delete the JP article. I'm not trying to shame the editors that they should've looked for Japanese sources either, I'm simply stating that since it was only released in Japan, sources from Japan should be used. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- No evidence of any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Despite a lot of talk (and some weird accusations) nobody has been able to find anything. Reyk  YO!  10:29, 22 May 2017 (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.