Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Fighter 2 (2nd nomination)

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. It appears an extensive and very good faith effort has been made to find WP:RS and WP:V without success. Sources currently in the article are all tied to the official site (except download figures) and most apparently authored by the creators. The notability of Little Fighter Online does not confer notability to this title. Because of the lack of sources, merging info into that article does not seem a good idea. Pigman☿ 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter 2[edit]

Article does not fulfill WP:N ~~(specifically WP:SOFTWARE)~~. The article is not listed for speedy deletion, as the current version is sufficiently different from the version that underwent the last AfD. Despite this, there has been no change in the subject or available sources. I personally have re-written the article and researched the subject, but the only sources I can find are primary sources, mostly from the game's official site. The title exists in game databases such as GameFAQs, IGN and Home of the Underdogs, but none of these have any content that can be used to establish notability. Several possible sources have been put forward in the article's discussion page, but none of them are reliable sources. The only professional source provided is the same Download.com download figure, which does not establish notability by itself. Scottie_theNerd 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again: Non notable, still. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Little Fighter Online According to the links Little Fighter Online has won significant awards [1] [2] As both are linked the sensible thing would be to merge them. WP:SOFTWARE is not a guideline or policy on notability, it cannot be used to justify deletion. --Neon white (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility of creating a Little Fighter (series) article was put forwarded in the discussion. However, there are absolutely no sources for either Little Fighter or Little Fighter 2, and only Little Fighter Online has any claim to notability. Some background based on the LF2 information could be included in LFO, but there isn't much content to merge in the first place. --Scottie_theNerd 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Little Fighter Online into a Little Fighter series. I understand what wikipedia wants. I understand that they want sources, but I belive this game deserve it's place into wikipedia. As Scottie said, there is not much to check up about the game because many old articles dissapeared. This game was very popular about 5 years ago. Download.com proves that it was very downloaded, also many gaming sites have LF2 into their databases, even if they don't contain much information about it. If these websites can have LF2 in their database I don't see why we can't. The information we have here is enough and it's at minimum. Also this game is freeware so a article in wikipedia is not "comercial". If Little Fighter Online can have an article, even if it's popular only in korea, and LF2 which was popular world wide can have an article, I don't see whay LF2 can't say, even if it's information is at minimum. --PET (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It does not serve the online community by keeping a record of everything in existence. Articles do not exist for that reason alone. Little Fighter Online has some claim to notability due to winning several awards, but bear in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These discussions have brought up a lot of claims that LF2 "deserves" and article, but articles are "deserved" when they are established to be notable. Again, you claim that we have "enough" information, but the only content the article has is a description of the gameplay based off the official site and a very brief background on the creators. It's definitely there, but I can't see how that is "enough" to prove that the subject is notable. --Scottie_theNerd 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There just needs time for a professional source to come up. Improvement could be added to the article as many other games have improvement warnings such as Soldat. The game is very popular back then and probably had tons of article about it. It is still popular now among the gaming fans but probably the press due to the game being old or even already written before hasn't published anything yet. Little Fighter 2 deserves it's article as much as Soldat. Game4Fans (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Press articles on popular games don't disappear that easily. If we can't find any sources to work with now, and given that the game is over eight years old and no longer being developed, it is highly unlikely that any sources will appear in the future. From what I've researched, there was no press coverage when the game first came out. It's a small project by two people, and while it may be a very popular download, I have not found any trace of coverage from any major gaming site. If, somehow, reliable sources appear, we can re-create the article. This article was re-created without any new sources being sourced. It is not identical to the deleted article, but it suffers from the same lack of sources. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that Soldat is not notable, tag it for deletion if you please. --Scottie_theNerd 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't that your job? Or are you only picking new LF2 articles? ^_^ Game4Fans (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My job? I don't patrol every single article on Wikipedia. If you think an article should be deleted, you tag it. --Scottie_theNerd 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the game is not notable, even a search for its Chinese name turns up no non-directory non-forum sources. It is relevant to the notable game Little Fighter Online, and should be merged into that article. User:Krator (t c) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any of it can be sourced, else Delete. No significant notability and I bet sourcing this would be a nightmare, if indeed it's possible at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried. There's nothing on hand that can be used. An editor recently identified an issue of a Hong Kong game magazine that recommended it and provided it on disc, but it doesn't look like anyone can locate the article. --Scottie_theNerd 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked through my stack of gaming magazines and the usual website sources, but cannot find any significant coverage per WP:N. Naturally, a mention on the Little Fighter Online article would be appropriate (which I'm glad to see now asserts notability.) Marasmusine (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Little Fighter has its own following, quite separate from commercial games. Not appearing in someone's particular stack of magazines or usual website sources does not qualify or disqualify an article. Live and let live. User:BVidHVid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.31.192 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources are unavailable, the article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Being popular or having a following does not qualify a subject to have an article on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Little Fighter Online which does have ample sourcing, or just let it be, it will most likely improve over time. RFerreira 07:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the "most likely [to] improve over time" part. After one deletion and re-creation, no progress has been made on finding sources to establish notability. If anything, this is less likely to improve over time, so merging with LFO is probably the expedient option. --Scottie_theNerd 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is just a small article which was intended to let people know about Little Fighter 2. They could not source many so called "real sources" because small games like Little Fighter 2 are games that do not need very many article on them but do have lots of fans. Because it is a shareware game, it is also clear that no one is trying to advertise the game. Why delete an article that clearly deserves to be here, on Wikipedia?--Spazit (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (forgot signature first time around.. which was like 2 minutes before this)[reply]
- Firstly, the game is freeware. Secondly, as pointed out again and again, articles deserve to be on Wikipedia based on how notable they are. If an article does not have sources that can establish its notability, it does not "deserve" to be on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems as though it can not meet sourcing requirements per WP:N. However, mention can be given in the proposed merge article. SorryGuy 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my very humble (and occasionally incorrect) opinion, the biggest issue in most deletion debates of this nature is the article's notabilty. In this case the verifiability policy almost rules this article inadmissible. I don't mean to say that in any cruel way, but the policy states that:If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This single third-party source does not establish notability. The article suggested for merging above, seems not to be about the same game - apparently, it's about a different game, with different styles. Adding any of the unsourced information in this article to that one would simply confuse the reader. _Jame§^ugrono 06:20, 8 December 2007 (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.