Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azure Striker Gunvolt 2

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 merge to Azure Striker Gunvolt#Sequel. Independent notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Striker Gunvolt 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Junk Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Comment~~ - Deletion doesn't really make sense to me. USGamer does a pretty detailed article on it, but most sources are on the briefer side, like Game Informer and IGN. I'm leaning towards redirecting for now, since the article has almost zero content, but spinning out to its own article as soon as an actual article is actually written. If its not notable yet, it certainly will be once the reviews start coming in. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated stance. Merge now, since there's very little content present, but feel free to break out again once there's more indepth previews like the USGamer one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's got a publisher and is a sequel to an existing release, which but the article is sub-stub quality. It might be premature, but I see no reason to delete it just to recreate the article when it releases. Jergling (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At most this needs to be redirected to the sequel section of the article for the original game.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Notability (video games) for my reasoning. If the original gets a full article, the sequel generally should too. Jergling (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::I agree with that reasoning.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Misread that, I initially thought they were suggesting that the info from from this article should be put in the first game's article not that the existence of that article meant that this should have one automatically.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Azure_Striker_Gunvolt#Sequel. This is an open and shut case. If we don't have a preponderance of sources, and we have an obvious section to hold the content, it should incubate there. I haven't seen that vg "notability" essay in years—I wouldn't cite it for anything. Does this have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) —not significantly, so merge it. czar 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a little closer call than that. The USGamer source is pretty in-depth, and there's a number of sources out there that do dedicate an entire article to the subject, though they are rather short. Honestly, if someone hadn't done such a half-assed job writing this, I doubt we'd be here discussing at all - there's probably enough to write a decent start-class article, if someone actually tried. I agree with your "merge" as long as its in its shoddy state, but I'd also support splitting it back out pretty much as soon as someone actually writes an article about it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now. There does not appear to be enough to justify a separate article at this point. This can be easily split back after its release when we have a developed critical reception section.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2016 (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.