Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majyūō

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majyūō[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Seems to be another obscure Japan-only game. The contesting editor is correct that there are reviews for the game, but the only ones I see from notable/reliable publications are Hardcore Gaming 101 and Nintendo Life (which is the only review listed for it at Mobygames). The article on Japanese Wikipedia lists only two sources, both of which seem to deal strictly with a homebrew reissue due out this April. The Japanese title admittedly makes it difficult to find anything with a conventional search engine; for instance, archive.org's search cannot recognize Japanese lettering, and a search for the romanization produces 0 results. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those two reviews in reliable sources enable a bare pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've more often heard ten reliable sources cited as the bare minimum for WP:GNG. Look at it from an ordinary, outside Wikipedia point-of-view: Would you think that a subject that had only ever been discussed in two sources was very important?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen 10 rs asked for, but have seen many articles kept with only 2 or 3 rs. Having coverage online in 2rs is a very strong indicator that there will be more rs coverage in offline Japanese sources particularly as other Japanese games articles reference reviews in offline sources Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, think of it from a common sense point-of-view, not looking at past AfDs; I hate to break it to you, but we don't always make the right decision here at AfD! Yeah, there's likely offline Japanese sources with coverage, but WP:But there must be sources! is not a valid keep argument.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 10 is definitely not a standard or requirement. Technically, the GNG just requires multiple - so two - while in practice, anecdotally, it seems like 4-5 is enough to sway people against merging/redirecting too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; English-language RSes demonstrably exist. I strongly suspect there are additional Japanese sources, though the game's title makes them difficult to find. Magazine reviews should exist, given that it's a console game. Phediuk (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pr Phediuk (outside observer commenting since poorly attended AFD). Martinp (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (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.