Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momodora III

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 redirect to Momodora. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momodora III

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

This topic does not appear to have notability (at least in English sources--which it should given its release on Steam). All I can pick out from the sources listed in WP:VGRS are a bunch of announcements: Destructoid: Steam, Greenlight; Hardcoregamer: Steam; Indiegames: demo. There's a bunch of mentions here and there, but otherwise, certainly no dedicated reviews, interviews, or other indications of real-world notability.

I note a series page at Momodora; perhaps that would make a decent "this exists" redirect target (note the page is by the same author). Izno (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momodora. This should probably have been a case of boldly redirect before going straight to an AfD that will obviously have the outcome of redirect. I couldn't find much coverage of it either, and it's easy to see why, the game's pretty short compared to Momodora IV and didn't get the same kind of widespread acclaim._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: I didn't realize the mainspace page existed when I originally nommed the page; I bumped into the draftspace version and started looking around. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should there even be a series article in this situation? Momodora 1-3 have minimal/zero coverage, Momodora 4 already has its own article, and development of Momodora V was canceled. If the series article is just going to briefly mention that the first 3 games exist, then that could easily be merged into a development/history section of the Momodora IV article. CurlyWi (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed there was sufficient coverage, but if there isn't, that should be an issue for an AfD of THAT page. In that case I think there should be no redirects, due to it being overly confusing to redirect Momodora 1-3 to Momodora IV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with CurlyWi at a general level. I don't agree about not redirecting the others, as they should be mentioned in the development/history section of 4, which makes them plausible redirects. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momodora since redirects are cheap and this is plausible search term and may have to be created even if deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2017 (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.