Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmo Gang the Video

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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Cosmo Gang the Video

Cosmo Gang the Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD. No reason was provided for the de-prodding, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: "Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. Both cited sources are unreliable due to consisting of user-generated content and provide only basic database information, no in-depth coverage." Martin IIIa (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep:
  • Italian magazine Game Power #15 covered Cosmo Gang the Video at length in a dedicated article that constitutes non-trivial coverage by a secondary source.
  • Superplay #3 also extensively covered the game in their magazine.
  • A cursory glance also shows that several contemporary magazines/books reviewed this game; Superplay Gold published a 1993 review, and short review appears in SNES Force #3.
• I found these through a quick search through the Internet Archive, which leads me to believe that I could easily find far more with a more involved search. However, this should be enough to establish immediate notability. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I was considering withdrawing the nomination based on the sources listed above, but then I realized that apart from the Game Power article, all of them are from SNES-specific publications. Usually when most coverage on a game comes from console-specific sources, it's an indication that the game is not notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither Game Power nor Super Play were magazines licensed through Nintendo, so neither of them were obligated to cover Cosmo Gang through affiliate connections. They don't share the same status that a magazine like Nintendo Power does, where the magazine's connections to Nintendo would make its articles ineligible for secondary sourcing. While these magazines are more niche than their contemporary counterparts, I don't believe this causes the articles I've provided to fail WP:NGAMES. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Cosmo Gang the Video was not published by Nintendo, so whether or not the sources were licensed by Nintendo is irrelevant. The issue is that console-specific publications often cover non-notable items because they are much more susceptible to "slow news days" than publications with broader coverage, and because their target audience is more likely to be interested in obscure items related to the console. So when a game is only covered by console-specific sources, it's a safe bet that it's not by coincidence.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the specific WP/precedent that states in broad strokes that hardware-specific magazines are unsuitable for establishing notability. WP:NOTABLE and WP:NGAMES don't mention this caveat, and at bare minimum, the Game Power and Super Play articles should constitute secondary, non-trivial coverage by magazines which were independently published during the game's release window. A game being obscure doesn't render it non-notable. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Doing a search for the Japanese title on Google brings up 11,900 hits, so I wouldn't say that no sources for this exist. However this article seems to rely on pretty unreliable sources, so there is something to bring into consideration. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Google hit counts are meaningless, even if Google did somehow guarantee that every hit was from a notable and reliable source. See this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Google search results automatically make it notable, or that every result is reliable, but there's most likely at least a handful of reliable sources that could be used. But that's just me. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (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.