Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji

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. I would be happy to userfy upon request for a possible merge. —Darkwind (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No reliable sources, no real non-game guide content, nothing to indicate much notability Jac16888 ^Talk 10:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the franchise's main article. There's nothing that makes this game independently notable outside of this connection. Ducknish (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2013 (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) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then should I just combine all the shinchan videogame articles into one? If not then what else? (If there's anything I CAN do. I'm not going to try to object this. I'm not even sure if I should put this comment here or not.) Magicperson6969 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Talk[reply]

There is something you can do: you can find reliable 3rd party references should any exist, and real world information as opposed to game guide information should any exist and you can rewrite it to be less of a game guide in general--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we discuss this in the talk page? Or is it okay to discuss this here? (I'm still fairly new to wikipedia) Magicperson6969 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well discuss it here - it's very simple really, without real sources the article cannot remain--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have received sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish notability and justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all video games articles into a list is a good idea, as a WP:SPLIT of the already too large Crayon Shin-chan. Situational coverage [1], [2] shows certain notability of the series of games as a whole. Diego (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm conflicted because my gut tells me Japanese print sources exist, but after all my searching and coming up dry (and the status of the main article and the inactivity of this AfD), reality tells me they're not going to show up. I'd be in favor of a Crayon Shin-chan video games article in theory, but the sourcing just doesn't exist—it's either too thin and from GamesRadar or non-existent. The others are going to end up in AfD. For what it's worth, the ja and fr articles also have no sources. As of now, these cheap video game spin-offs aren't independently passing the GNG and should be deleted. If a savior with print sources comes along, she can always recover whatever little was once written. czar · · 03:23, 15 April 2013 (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.