Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zospped (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 22 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Japan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Japan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Japan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: Anime and manga-related deletions.

Japan

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. I suppose I could have relisted this one more time, but looking at the comments since I first relisted it, I can see that there are some very strong arguments to delete. I feel that if I were to relist this, it would simply garner more delete !votes and meanwhile we would have wasted more time of AfD !voters' time. It's somewhat telling that we didn't get more people interested in !voting here, If you feel I made this closure in error, please let me know and I'll relist it for the second time, but only if you truly believe that AfD regulars honestly feel this article needs to be kept. I don't want to waste the AfD regular's time to once again look through this AfD that they have likely looked at for at least two times before. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Shakugan no Shana

Wikipedia is not dictionary, and copyvio from [1].--Zospped 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Zospped (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder to Roninbk's comment above: Sockpuppetry of whom? Pre-sockpuppetry of somebody (such as myself) who will then agree? Possibly (well, I'll claim I'm somebody separate, but I would claim that, wouldn't I?), but I think you need rather more convincing evidence. There could be some other explanation. Anyway, I see no reason why the nomination shouldn't be considered on its merits. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Hoary, (if that IS your real name...,) first off I classified it as a neutral comment, not intending as a vote one way or the other. Secondly, I'll admit that it might not be a sock, but it is some form of single purpose account. The alledged SPA went two steps beyond the normal procedure listed at WP:AFD. Normally people outside the wikiproject don't add those tags. And third, even 2+ weeks since the nomination, the account doesn't have any other edits. Classic SPA. --Roninbk t c e # 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because if WP is WP:NOT a repository for plot summaries, it certainly isn't one for plot ingredients. Plus it's a bizarre sort of article: I gather that there's no English version of this thing, so those people who are interested in those Japanese terms that aren't obviously gairaigo must often (not always, cf "Haridan") guess at an English translation, and then look that up. If these translations are original, this is not "Original Research" but it seems a bit pointless; if they aren't, the translator should be credited but is not. There's only one "External links" (sic): to a blank page. This kind of thing is prime material for a separate Wikia wiki, surely. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth and Hoary. Sandstein 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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, see final comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings (Transformers)

From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's a great article. I've used it as a reference a half dozen times on Transformers message boards when the subject comes up. user:mathewignash
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.
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. - Bobet 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seitou Ryu

non-notable karate club. Nekohakase 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. Dakota 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel and Death

Yet another flash game, notability is doubtful at best, google hits are to be expected since it's a free online game Equendil Talk 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too minor for an article- doesn't meet WP:WEB and is unverifiable. The Developer's site also has a fairly poor Alexa ranking- the majority of Google hits come from gaming directories and hosting sites.--Wafulz 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not really sure how an Internet flash game could ever achieve notability...I guess making the news somehow or being reviewed in a magazine would help, but whatever the proper criteria would be, this sure doesn't meet them. -Elmer Clark 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elmer. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sort of amusing but not at all notable. I would not agree with Elmer that a flash game is inherently nonnotable, but I would definitely agree that the vast majority of them are not, even ones that are relatively popular and well-executed, due to their ephemeral nature. NTK 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bejeweled is on here and no one has a problem with it. Over 25milliion plays within the first few months after release, if that doesn't qualify for notability then what does? Yes it would increase google rankings, but that isn't the purpose of the article. Anything on wikipedia will have it's google ranking raised, that doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick & Harry is using Wikipedia as an advertising method.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hechaos (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as nn game. Comparing this to Bejeweled? Bejewled became a huge hit and is also available on Xbox Live Arcade and many cell phones. TJ Spyke 06:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Not even checking with the figures, as a free-to-play game that downloads in seconds on broadband, it isn't surprising that it has spread like wildfire amongst these free gaming sites. What else is there to actually say about this game? The article itself repeats itself and doesn't make a great deal of sense. Is this 'road rage' a sega game I've never heard of or are we talking Road Rash? When was there a motorbike duel in Bladerunner? Seems gobbledegook to put a few sentences in an article that hasn't proven any need to exist. With the greatest of respect, Bejeweled isn't just a popular webgame, it springboarded Popcap games up into a company publishing and producing some polished games and established them as one to watch. Bejeweled has been ported to many formats and is also a commercial product (the deluxe version). If this game gets some press, takes the world by storm etc. then I'd welcome an article, but right now it reads like a nonsensical advert about a popular-enough game that's getting copied-and-pasted by its developers. QuagmireDog 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know this one, but it's entirely unencyclopedic. Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asuasu1 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bejeweled is notable. This isn't. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effective Microorganisms

  • Advertising. Unsubstantiated claims. NPOV. SPAM? I'm really unsure what to do about this article. Much of the material is pseudoscientific. No independant, peer-reviewed publications were found (the 700 supplied are by the people selling the products, or are not in scientific journals). I'm for deleteing (or at the very least very major rewriting) this article. MidgleyDJ 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have many interests of which EM is only one. I have not created an ID until recently. If you can re-write the article so it doesn't look like spam, I would welcome it. I repeat: The science of effective microorganisms works as described. What confirmation do you need? Urbanwild 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see if we can get it into shape first. I say don't delete it - at least, not yet. As it stands, it is spam, but the topic is quite interesting and it could be re-written to take most of the blatant advertising. I'm going to do this now, and remove the unsubstatiated claims - if there's anything left to work with once that's done, I say the article should stay. Gruffle Gaw 11:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PubMed shows 11 articles on "effective microorganisms". It's interesting to note that these arent the best journals in their respective fields. The claims in the wikipedia article (in my experience) would warrant publications in very good journals. It speaks to me of smoke and mirrors. MidgleyDJ 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not experienced with PubMed, but I only found one, and not used in the sense of this article. Did you check that these articles were about the same thing or whether they simply contained the string "effective microorganisms"? NTK 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Kingdom Hearts series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. A similar AFD led to delete here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect to Super Smash Bros. Whispering(talk/c) 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blast-Line

The article talk page sums this one up nicely. Blast line is a term relevant to Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee (its only links), and not much else. The information has already been added to the articles in question, and other terms from these games have already been deleted.  T.K.  TALK  03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Dragonball Z in Negima.

This article is purely Original Research, POV, unsourced and cannot be verified(due to the fact that the author of such series did not and is not likely to admit making reference to other series by different authors). The creator of this page created it just because the same content was deleted in the main article of Negima in the Trivia section by the same reason. MythSearcher 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arekkusu

To quote the first paragraph of the article, "Arekkusu is a fictional character that does not appear in the anime series Naruto. He is merely created by a fan to be a character that might live in that world. He will be a character in a upcoming fan-fiction that is not yet titled and the release date has not been set." Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, and possibly other guidelines that I'm not familiar with. ~SnapperTo 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Past Of The Three Swords! The Promise Between Zoro And Kuina!

No context, despite being tagged for a long time - seems to have been abandoned. Cordless Larry 16:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.


I have considered the opposing points-of-view in this discussion and decided to delete the page. An encyclopedia article cannot be written on this subject at present, and there is no good reason to believe that this is likely to change in a reasonable period of time. Regards —Encephalon 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Strongest Weirdo! Django The Hypnotist!

Not notable and not encyclopedic. Shazbot85Talk 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants may also wish to see Category:One Piece episodes. —Encephalon 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'd like to agree with you, but almost every somewhat popular T.V. series has plot summaries in them (and most of them don't even strictly fit the exceptions that the Plot Summary point in WP:NOT gives out). Good luck getting them deleted. ColourBurst 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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. Sango123 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Baby

Unverifiable, fails WP:V. External links do not mention the subject, no Google hits for the subject, no sources. Article was prodded but removed by different editor than the author (both rather new editors). Fram 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minitokyo

No evidence of passing WP:WEB, not so many sites links to this one [3]. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden

WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are 81 unique Google hits, most of which are from forums/blogs.[4] None of the results nor the link on the talk page establishes notability of this game. Even the creator's text indicates little is known about the game. Perhaps an article will be appropriate when information is known. Erechtheus 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] A scan showing screenshots of the game and information. Speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that constitute any sort of verifiable source? Erechtheus 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt other than simply distrusting that the scan is legitimate that the game exists and is in development and that there is plenty of information available? Such as the fact that it utilizes the touch screen, and that it's a full 3D fighter, and the several characters available? I'm not even taking into account information that cannot be assertained from the screenshots. Can you give me a reason why we should not trust this scan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What magazine is it from? --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trusting random scans is not the business of this encyclopedia. That's the whole point of the policy I linked in my response to you. Erechtheus 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this random? How is this any less reliable than all of the other scans constantly used to verify information? The way you're going on, you make it sound like the point of Wikipedia is to assume that all sources are either lies or merely incorrect. So, do me a favor and explain to me why all of the sources on Wikipedia, which could be lying or incorrect, get put on Wikipedia without a second thought, but a scan with absolutely no reason to assume is fake cannot be used as a source? Just because you do not like my evidence does not make it bad evidence. Instead of presenting the possibility that it, like literally every other source for every single piece of information in the universe, could be fake, why don't you prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This file is hosted on some random free image host. Before behaving in a hostile manner in AfDs, please review the relevent policy that has been pointed out to you. If you have additional questions on that topic, feel free to take it to my user talk. We need to focus on this deletion discussion in this forum.Erechtheus 08:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to announced events. Add the "upcoming" tag, not delete. Furthermore, it seems to me that the first 3D fighter on a particular game system is a claim of notability. --Gau 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to indicate that this has been announced. Can you provide references? Erechtheus 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNeed more info I can't find it on the gmae maker's website, but it may be too new. The title from the magazine (忍列伝) doesn't search well-- perhaps, I've used the wrong kanji. It's a likely keep, though. But some info and a "future event" tag would be nice. Got the info, added the tag. It's notable enough to keep an announcement article.... However, I think the CVG article structure needs to be re-examined. Creating seperate articles for what are essentially the same games as they are adapted to different gaming systems is a bit much. --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I completely believe you when you say this is a real game, I honestly do. Wikipedia is not a place to get the ZOMG latest news, and if it can't be verified then it should be deleted per policy. Verifiability, not truth. Without a source this article will just be a crap-magnet for rumors and false info, which is one of the reasons we have WP:V. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source? Are you saying that screenshots plus details about the game is insufficient evidence to show that the game exists? This is not a matter of Wikinews on Wikipedia, this is a matter of a notable game on a notable system getting an article because it was announced to exist. The argument that it could be a fake scan is a laughable one. One would have to go to insane measures to get it as detailed as it is. Not only that, but saying a magazine scan could be fake (not on the basis that it looks fake, but on the basis that there have been fakes) creates precedent for not only all magazine scans to be labelled as possible fakes and not suitable for Wikipedia, but also news. Just because you hold a certain site to a higher standard than magazine scans doesn't mean it necessarily is a decent source. Remember when Yahoo! said Andy Kaufman was alive? Either a lie or misinformation on their part. There is no indication that this scan is fake. The place that I found the scan on, NeoGAF, is a constant supplier of magazine scans from Dengeki, CoroCoro Comics, Famitsu and others. Not only that, but it is from 2ch. Guess what they announced?
  • It's a Wonderful World for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS
  • Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII of the PlayStation Portable
  • Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix for the PlayStation 2
  • Seiken Densetsu Heroes of Mana for the Nintendo DS

And that's not even the entire list. What you're doing is assuming bad faith in the sources that I am providing. 2ch is the source of much news from Japan, especially from the Famitsu magazine. Do you have a reasoning for why 2ch is not trustworthy? Or why this magazine scan, with incredible detail, screenshots from the game and information from the game, is not a good source? Do you see any single sign that the magazine has been altered in any way imagineable? If not, do not denounce it, treat it as if it wasn't fake, like you do with any decent source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm saying POLICY says that you have FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE SOURCES. This is NOT optional, this is NOT something you get to get pissed off at ME for, this is something that YOU have to do if you wish this article to exist. This is not something that I pulled out of my ass, this is something that everyone has to follow. It doesn't matter if you gave me a copy of the damn game in my own hands, because it's "verifiability, not truth".
The burden is on you to cite sources on that article if you wish it to be kept. You can cry and scream "not fair" as much as you want, but if you used that effort to cite some sources, then I would retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reasoning for why 2ch is not reliable? Other than the fact that it's a message board founded on the principle of complete anonymity, where posters' identities are completely unverifiable by design and where absolutely anyone can post absolutely any random claim they like? It's the epitome of unreliability. There is probably not a single site on the web where posts are less trustworthy. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not verifiable? Shall I point out how a whopping none of the people voting delete have even given an ioda of reason to assume that the scan is fake or incorrect? There is no reason to assume that it's fake other than the fact that we do not know what scan it is from.

However, I have done research and can confirm that this is Weekly Jump. It uses a similar style to other Jump magazines, and Weekly Jump is usually the magazine to first confirm a new Naruto game (similar to CoroCoro Comics and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). This is hardly a bad source. If we do not assume that this magazine scan is a fake, it provides plenty of information. It is not some mysterious game that's nothing more than a name, system and genre; we have screenshots, details on what the touch screen will look like, some of the characters that are available, the visuals (full 3D fighter), the release date (TBA 2006) and other information that can't be assertained from the screenshots. And then we've got the fact that it's published by Takara Tomy. If we got somebody who can read Japanese, we'd have even more information. And if you claim that a scan cannot be a source - if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, it would not need a source to show it exists; because the user could look at the scan and know it exists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure that all that of that is true, and it's already confirmed, then finding other sources shouldn't be a problem. It's not like Naruto is obscure or anything. Recury 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The game was only just announced and only by this magazine. The only sources I could get are news articles about the scan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything A Link to the Past has said makes sense -- it's pretty silly to discount this source over any other. That said...is there enough info on the game that it needs an article? This was brought up in another recent game that had a screenshot. The arguments were that the game wasn't developed enough to be notible, and I believe it ended up getting deleted because of that. This was a PC game, however. Honestly, my opinion is that, while the info might be verifyable...the game, at this point, might not be notible enough to have its own page. I'm sure a 'Games Based off Naruto' or somesuch page would be quite sufficient, but that's just IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Publisher is known, screenshots exist from a reliable source. Seems fine to me, as long as it is updated as information becomes available. - CNichols 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. Just stop. Read WP:V and WP:RS. After reading those, if you still think you have reliable sources then read WP:CITE for how to add the sources to the article. Yes, that's right, you need to add the sources to the article itself and not just yell about it here. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and? So if I placed that source on the article, you would suddenly vote to keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dboocock 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Keep http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-17-71-2-74-17a-49-en.html[reply]

  • Keep looks like we got the source issue cleared up, as well as a second source from Dboocock. -- Ned Scott 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -in my view WP is not a forum for announcing forthcoming games, movies, books or anything else because a balanced encyclopaedic article cannot be written until the product is available to review. BlueValour 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have sources, that being Weekly Jump. I'd say that's a great source, to boot. When it comes to games, this is the best (and only) source we could get, so I don't see point of even considering deletion of this specific article. If a game's existence can't be proven with just what one company says alone, then all articles of games not having been mentioned by two separete companies need to be removed to keep consistent with the rule. Donkey Kong Country has for instance (and this is just an example for the discussion at hand, which is why I won't go out of my way to hunt for sources - it serves its purpose even if it would've been fake) been talked about by both Rare and Nintendo personell, in which case we have two sources proving the existance of said game(s). But does a game really require a second company to comment it for it to be available to read about on WP?KiddDaBeauty
  • Strong Keep per [6], which shows the release date of "Winter 2006" and the platform of "Nintendo DS". The page it's from is linked from the article at [7]. This article is completely verifiable, and due to the immense popularity of the Naruto series, it's very, very unlikely the game won't come out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Tyrenius 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUS Project

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The phrases "TUS Project", "Megaman Battle Network 7", and "Rockman EXE 7" all return less than 150 Google hits. Also, at least two other users have told me that this article includes inappropriate information. --Ixfd64 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy DeleteIt's not false information, it's information that shouldn't be there. This article was laready up for AfD, but the entry has been deleted, the history of edits on the article's page was wiped. -Sukecchi 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the vast majority of the information was obtained illegally, and as a result, TUS is threatening to stop the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.88.213 (talk • contribs)

Follow Up-See, that's what we would edit it to, but 162.84.180.223 (talk · contribs) would revert it back. -Sukecchi 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the information that seemed unverified to me and semi-protected the article to prevent reposting by the anons. For now, I'll leave it to others to further cleanup the article and/or expand it with verifiable content. I'm not convinced though that this topic actually deserves encyclopedia coverage. Dragons flight 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging duplicated AfD into this one: [8] --WinHunter (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, wrong title, apparently about a piece of vaporware The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman The Megamissions

This megaman fan fiction sprite comic, found on the free web host Drunk Duck, can be seen here. There is no assertion of notabilty, and there are 10 Google links for "Megaman The Megamissions". - Hahnchen 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. Tyrenius 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIst of digivice

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deville (Talk) 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I think the extra cap in the title is unintentional. (?) --- Deville (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi Hayakawa

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect to fansub. Mangojuicetalk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomodachi Anime

WP:OR and WP:NN, google 651hit.--Rocketds 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.
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--Konstable 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casio Exilim EX-S600

Individual camera model information is unnecessary at this level of detail. Prod removed by poster. ArmadilloFromHell 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a camera user guide. Erechtheus 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made that page, and you want to delete it because it's to detailed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftysixmoha (talk • contribs)
    • First, sign your posts with ~~~~. Second, try reading WP:NOT as linked by Erechtheus; it mentions that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article definitely is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the nominator is wrong. Some subjects can be covered in this level of detail. However, only if one doesn't contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy by doing so — i.e. there must be multiple published non-trivial sources (independent of the subject and its manufacturer, per our WP:CORP criteria) that already cover the subject in this level of detail. Given that this article cites "My Casio Exilim EX-S600 Digital Camera, and myself" as its references, it clearly isn't based upon sources. Please always use sources when writing articles, and do not perform original research. Uncle G 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. Casio's a notable manufacturer, but not everything which comes out of their factories is notable in and of itself. Also, note that the author removed the AfD template from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC0
  • I read the WP:NOT and my article is perfectly fine within thoses lines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.103.67 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: A bit of semantics... please note that this is not "your" article, per WP:OWN. --Kinu t/c 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • REPLY I get the fact that the article I wrote infact does not belong to me, because it is a contribution from me, that is what I ment by "my" article, and what does that have to do with my article being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.80 (talk • contribs)
        • Deliberately citing yourself as a reference is within the field of original research. Beyond that, even if the article is well-written, the topic isn't that notable. A style of architecture is noteworthy, but not every one of the thousands of examples of it are. A company may be noteworthy, but not necessarily everything it makes. A particular device may be described in general, but not every make and model of it need be explored in depth. There are explanations of what cameras are and what they do; we don't need an article about every camera. Djcartwright 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ReplyAt this point, I would like wikipedia to keep this article, at this point will my article be deleted? if so -or- if not, pleaes notify me ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wing000 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia should have a list of all digitals cameras.--Taida 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Wikipedia already has an article on Digital cameras which seems to cover all the important aspects thereof. Why is any one given exemplar of the type any more notable than any other? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if there is any useful content (i.e., that does not read like a product review), then it should be merged into Casio Exilim and the page should be redirected there. Information on the various models of this line of camera may be useful for comparison purposes in that main article, but as it stands, a page on each individual model seems unencyclopedic, and seems to provide a magnet for addition of POV content that would turn Wikipedia into epinions.com. --Kinu t/c 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BigHaz nails it. —ptk✰fgs 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Petros471 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Art History Forum

Non notable web CartoonDiablo 01:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)cartoondiablo These forums are of very little importance to wikipedia and are definitely non notable web.[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Japan&oldid=77143285"