Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are 81 unique Google hits, most of which are from forums/blogs.[1] None of the results nor the link on the talk page establishes notability of this game. Even the creator's text indicates little is known about the game. Perhaps an article will be appropriate when information is known. Erechtheus 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] A scan showing screenshots of the game and information. Speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that constitute any sort of verifiable source? Erechtheus 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt other than simply distrusting that the scan is legitimate that the game exists and is in development and that there is plenty of information available? Such as the fact that it utilizes the touch screen, and that it's a full 3D fighter, and the several characters available? I'm not even taking into account information that cannot be assertained from the screenshots. Can you give me a reason why we should not trust this scan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What magazine is it from? --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trusting random scans is not the business of this encyclopedia. That's the whole point of the policy I linked in my response to you. Erechtheus 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this random? How is this any less reliable than all of the other scans constantly used to verify information? The way you're going on, you make it sound like the point of Wikipedia is to assume that all sources are either lies or merely incorrect. So, do me a favor and explain to me why all of the sources on Wikipedia, which could be lying or incorrect, get put on Wikipedia without a second thought, but a scan with absolutely no reason to assume is fake cannot be used as a source? Just because you do not like my evidence does not make it bad evidence. Instead of presenting the possibility that it, like literally every other source for every single piece of information in the universe, could be fake, why don't you prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This file is hosted on some random free image host. Before behaving in a hostile manner in AfDs, please review the relevent policy that has been pointed out to you. If you have additional questions on that topic, feel free to take it to my user talk. We need to focus on this deletion discussion in this forum.Erechtheus 08:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to announced events. Add the "upcoming" tag, not delete. Furthermore, it seems to me that the first 3D fighter on a particular game system is a claim of notability. --Gau 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to indicate that this has been announced. Can you provide references? Erechtheus 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNeed more info I can't find it on the gmae maker's website, but it may be too new. The title from the magazine (忍列伝) doesn't search well-- perhaps, I've used the wrong kanji. It's a likely keep, though. But some info and a "future event" tag would be nice. Got the info, added the tag. It's notable enough to keep an announcement article.... However, I think the CVG article structure needs to be re-examined. Creating seperate articles for what are essentially the same games as they are adapted to different gaming systems is a bit much. --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I completely believe you when you say this is a real game, I honestly do. Wikipedia is not a place to get the ZOMG latest news, and if it can't be verified then it should be deleted per policy. Verifiability, not truth. Without a source this article will just be a crap-magnet for rumors and false info, which is one of the reasons we have WP:V. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source? Are you saying that screenshots plus details about the game is insufficient evidence to show that the game exists? This is not a matter of Wikinews on Wikipedia, this is a matter of a notable game on a notable system getting an article because it was announced to exist. The argument that it could be a fake scan is a laughable one. One would have to go to insane measures to get it as detailed as it is. Not only that, but saying a magazine scan could be fake (not on the basis that it looks fake, but on the basis that there have been fakes) creates precedent for not only all magazine scans to be labelled as possible fakes and not suitable for Wikipedia, but also news. Just because you hold a certain site to a higher standard than magazine scans doesn't mean it necessarily is a decent source. Remember when Yahoo! said Andy Kaufman was alive? Either a lie or misinformation on their part. There is no indication that this scan is fake. The place that I found the scan on, NeoGAF, is a constant supplier of magazine scans from Dengeki, CoroCoro Comics, Famitsu and others. Not only that, but it is from 2ch. Guess what they announced?
  • It's a Wonderful World for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS
  • Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII of the PlayStation Portable
  • Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix for the PlayStation 2
  • Seiken Densetsu Heroes of Mana for the Nintendo DS

And that's not even the entire list. What you're doing is assuming bad faith in the sources that I am providing. 2ch is the source of much news from Japan, especially from the Famitsu magazine. Do you have a reasoning for why 2ch is not trustworthy? Or why this magazine scan, with incredible detail, screenshots from the game and information from the game, is not a good source? Do you see any single sign that the magazine has been altered in any way imagineable? If not, do not denounce it, treat it as if it wasn't fake, like you do with any decent source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm saying POLICY says that you have FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE SOURCES. This is NOT optional, this is NOT something you get to get pissed off at ME for, this is something that YOU have to do if you wish this article to exist. This is not something that I pulled out of my ass, this is something that everyone has to follow. It doesn't matter if you gave me a copy of the damn game in my own hands, because it's "verifiability, not truth".
The burden is on you to cite sources on that article if you wish it to be kept. You can cry and scream "not fair" as much as you want, but if you used that effort to cite some sources, then I would retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reasoning for why 2ch is not reliable? Other than the fact that it's a message board founded on the principle of complete anonymity, where posters' identities are completely unverifiable by design and where absolutely anyone can post absolutely any random claim they like? It's the epitome of unreliability. There is probably not a single site on the web where posts are less trustworthy. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless more/better sources are found. Recury 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 'this game has been announced, but nothing is known about it' articles. --InShaneee 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not verifiable? Shall I point out how a whopping none of the people voting delete have even given an ioda of reason to assume that the scan is fake or incorrect? There is no reason to assume that it's fake other than the fact that we do not know what scan it is from.

However, I have done research and can confirm that this is Weekly Jump. It uses a similar style to other Jump magazines, and Weekly Jump is usually the magazine to first confirm a new Naruto game (similar to CoroCoro Comics and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). This is hardly a bad source. If we do not assume that this magazine scan is a fake, it provides plenty of information. It is not some mysterious game that's nothing more than a name, system and genre; we have screenshots, details on what the touch screen will look like, some of the characters that are available, the visuals (full 3D fighter), the release date (TBA 2006) and other information that can't be assertained from the screenshots. And then we've got the fact that it's published by Takara Tomy. If we got somebody who can read Japanese, we'd have even more information. And if you claim that a scan cannot be a source - if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, it would not need a source to show it exists; because the user could look at the scan and know it exists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure that all that of that is true, and it's already confirmed, then finding other sources shouldn't be a problem. It's not like Naruto is obscure or anything. Recury 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The game was only just announced and only by this magazine. The only sources I could get are news articles about the scan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything A Link to the Past has said makes sense -- it's pretty silly to discount this source over any other. That said...is there enough info on the game that it needs an article? This was brought up in another recent game that had a screenshot. The arguments were that the game wasn't developed enough to be notible, and I believe it ended up getting deleted because of that. This was a PC game, however. Honestly, my opinion is that, while the info might be verifyable...the game, at this point, might not be notible enough to have its own page. I'm sure a 'Games Based off Naruto' or somesuch page would be quite sufficient, but that's just IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Publisher is known, screenshots exist from a reliable source. Seems fine to me, as long as it is updated as information becomes available. - CNichols 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough is known to justify an article at this stage. No reliable sources are cited (linking to scans posted on a random blog does not meet WP:RS). Come back and create the article when you have something more to say than "little is known at the moment". — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh? We don't know enough? I've stated more than enough information not currently present in this article to justify its existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. Just stop. Read WP:V and WP:RS. After reading those, if you still think you have reliable sources then read WP:CITE for how to add the sources to the article. Yes, that's right, you need to add the sources to the article itself and not just yell about it here. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and? So if I placed that source on the article, you would suddenly vote to keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No cristall ball. A purple wikiuser 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There's a problem here: if the source said 2ch's random scan, that would not be acceptable as a source, but the source is Weekly Jump (obviously someone would need to corroborate this.) If we don't accept Weekly Jump as a source because few people can access Weekly Jump, it seriously gets close to WP:WING territory. The source would have to be added to the article, of course. ColourBurst 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even if that is an acceptable source (which would need to be corroborated), we have one source. I'd suggest that the standard is two acceptable sources because that is a part of a number of the notability guidelines. Erechtheus 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One trustworthy source is better than two untrustworthy source. If Nintendo confirmed a New Super Mario Bros. 2 for DS, would we need a second source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Recury 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems a bit inane. To not trust that Nintendo isn't lying about a game in development? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The issue is not truth, as has already been mentioned to you in this discussion. The issue is suitability for coverage in this encyclopedia. Erechtheus 00:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since when is a magazine not a reliable source? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dboocock 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Keep http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-17-71-2-74-17a-49-en.html[reply]

  • Keep looks like we got the source issue cleared up, as well as a second source from Dboocock. -- Ned Scott 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -in my view WP is not a forum for announcing forthcoming games, movies, books or anything else because a balanced encyclopaedic article cannot be written until the product is available to review. BlueValour 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have sources, that being Weekly Jump. I'd say that's a great source, to boot. When it comes to games, this is the best (and only) source we could get, so I don't see point of even considering deletion of this specific article. If a game's existence can't be proven with just what one company says alone, then all articles of games not having been mentioned by two separete companies need to be removed to keep consistent with the rule. Donkey Kong Country has for instance (and this is just an example for the discussion at hand, which is why I won't go out of my way to hunt for sources - it serves its purpose even if it would've been fake) been talked about by both Rare and Nintendo personell, in which case we have two sources proving the existance of said game(s). But does a game really require a second company to comment it for it to be available to read about on WP?KiddDaBeauty
  • Strong Keep per [3], which shows the release date of "Winter 2006" and the platform of "Nintendo DS". The page it's from is linked from the article at [4]. This article is completely verifiable, and due to the immense popularity of the Naruto series, it's very, very unlikely the game won't come out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 27 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naruto:_Shinobi_Retsuden&oldid=1138113449"