Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Praise (series)

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. John254 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Praise (series)[edit]

This article lacks independent sources, and addresses a product in a genre so specific that I had no idea it even existed. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't the whole idea of an encyclopedia to tell you about things you didn't know before? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never heard of this genre myself, either, but I'm not at all surprised that it exists. A quick googling yields many thousands of hits for the Dance Praise game, so it's obviously of interest to many people. Sure, the article could use some cleanup (including independent sources), but it doesn't strike me as at all delete-worthy. Klausness (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Klausness. It does indeed have independent reliable sources, and the nominator (and admittedly Klausness) used ATA in AFD (lol) - Google test and 'I've never heard of it'. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand WP:NOSOURCES is a valid argument, and that was the main one. Feel free to add independent reliable sources to the article if they exist. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. I have added a significant amount of sources (both first and third party). There are now about a dozen sources for this article. Alex Perrier (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Klausness. --Oldak Quill 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Niche market stuff to be sure, but there's more than enough sources to maintain a series article. I much prefer the series article approach than splatting hundreds of stubs about containing nothing more than a box shot and a one-sentence intro. There are other sources out there covering various games in the series, but I don't want to spend the next hour sifting through them, as I've enough on my plate and fixing up this article isn't on the menu. Someone another 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources presented. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in The New York Times. --Pixelface (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have adequate coverage that meets WP:N. Dreadstar † 03:26, 11 March 2008 (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.