Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantasy Star II Text Adventures

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 am deleting and recreating as a redirect to Phantasy Star#Spin-offs where it is mentioned as a valid search term ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star II Text Adventures[edit]

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

Just like previous games, there isn't enough development and reception to consider this article notable. Lucia Black (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lucia Black, I think it would be fair to roll all these up into one. Same as my prior comments, it's a problem with the references. The subject doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article and the lack of reliable sources back this up. This kind of article is more appropriate on Wikia. Gm545 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're all distinctly different games, ~~so they really should be kept separate.~~ so they should all have separate AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: what do you mean by "separate". in their own articles or described separately as merged? Although distinct games, a large number of games that aren't notable are also clumped together. Here in this instance, their all spin offs, more respectively, their all spin offs of Phantasy Star and Phantasy Star II.Lucia Black (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the above person was in favor of merging the discussions for Phantasy Star Adventure, Phantasy Star Gaiden, Phantasy Star II Text Adventures, correct? They're of the same series, but from different consoles and genre. I just thought they should have their separate AFD discussions. I assume you feel the same, since that is the way you nominated them yourself... Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were voting. my mistake. i suppose we should keep them separate, although it would be great if we could rack them up together. i'm not so sure if its allowed to advertise the other AfD's that have similar complaints and similar situation.Lucia Black (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, that's not what I was trying to do. I've struck my comment and reworded it for clarity. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's perfectly reasonable to WP:BUNDLE if warranted. I think it would be warranted in this case as they're all spin-offs of the same game series. If not, fair enough. Gm545 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally sought sources for all three of these Phantasy Star articles and have found nothing to use. Not to brag, but I am fairly decent at sourcing rather obscure subjects. As for bundling, it's safer to do them separately so as if one article is shown to be notable, the AfD doesn't fail. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (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) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (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.