Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The article fails to establish the importance of the book other than the fact that it exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (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) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but source review (hit the books link up top, in particular) shows that actually this book has drawn some commentary and looks to easily satisfy the WP:GNG (and yeah, I mean while disregarding the results that are just it being mentioned that the author wrote it). —chaos5023 (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is a book that is cited a fair number of times (example) but I'm not sure yet that it passes WP:NBOOK. I haven't seen any significant coverage. However, over the past month I've been coming across Kohler's name repeatedly in my research and I'm wondering if we should have an article on him. This can then be included there. Marasmusine (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We should, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kohler (2nd nomination). It's a shame that one wasn't relisted. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (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.