Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJMax

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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJMax

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

Does not meet WP:V and WP:N; no reliable sources found in Google News search Miniapolis (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A very popular franchise in far east[1] which gets frequent if sometimes brief mentions in Western gaming media: full-length reviews[2][3]; Metacritic pages[4][5]; shorter mentions[6][7][8][9][10]. There's a lot of related pages on WP e.g. DJMax Trilogy, DJMax Portable, DJMax Technika, which may contain additional evidence for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator). All external links cited above are to advertising or product-review sites; all three other DJMax articles have been tagged by other editors for problematic (or no) sources. Not every video game (or video-game franchise) needs a Wikipedia article. Miniapolis (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in western media, very popular in the east. Kotaku. The company has even been sued by Konami. Why this is even nominated as it is a product for sale, and actually quite popular is beyond me. Things must have changed the years I've been gone from WP.. Edit: Even being SOLD in the western countries both on Amazon, Play etc. Why have you nominated this? Seriously.. This is like nominating Dance Dance Revolution. Havok (T/C/e/c) 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is for sale doesn't mean it requires a Wikipedia article. As explained above, I was unable to find reliable sources for the article's subject; if other editors can find sources meeting the RS guidelines, they are free to add them (and add them to related DJMax articles as well, since they have the same problem). Miniapolis (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it has been featured in many gaming publications and websites. You state WP:QS when Colapeninsula gives links to several reputable websites (Edge, IGN, GameSpy) whom all have their own WP pages. Could you also please state which part of WP:V this fails? Also, WP:RS is a guideline where the very first part of it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It would be better if you tagged the articles with merge and/or *{{refimprove}} rather then nominating it for deletion. And, it doesn't seem to me as if you followed all the points of BEFORE Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the aims of the Article Rescue Squadron; however, it seems more productive to actually improve an article tagged for deletion than to accuse an editor with the temerity to list an AFD of not reading policy. I'm no deletionist, but am working overtime on cleanup detail already and have no desire to research sources for the DJMax franchise; perhaps you'd like to do that. Miniapolis (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "디제이맥스" gets a number of hits on google news, so it looks like it's getting significant coverage in Korea. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language sources should be sufficiently translated into English to demonstrate that the source supports the information cited. Miniapolis (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources have been presented above. Furthermore, I feel like this article, which is pretty much a "series" article, should be kept so that we have something to redirect/merge some of the individual articles to in the future, should it be needed. While I think the series on a whole is notable, it could probably be argued that not every entry in the series is individually notable, but they do have their own articles, so this could be a useful merge/redirect target if anyone ever targeted those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand the problem here. This is (to my knowledge) one of the most popular rhythm-action games in (South) Korea in its category. It also enjoys moderate success in Japan and USA. And even in EU where none of the DJMAX titles have been officially released to retail and players have to import them from (South) Korea, USA or Japan. It's also one of the few real competitors for Beatmania IIDX games on a market. About the verifiability... there are many sources which everybody can verify through the use of Google or Flickr for example. Not to mention the various Korean and Japanese sources. --Mikitei (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many reliable sources, then a few just need to be added to the article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2012 (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.