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 keep (non-administrative closure). There is no consensus to delete. The subject is indeed notable. Here are some reasons of why this should be kept as per the discussion below: 1.) Even if there are very few English sources and many Japanese sources, that are reliable sources, that establishes notability. Even if there are no English sources at all out there and only Japanese reliable sources, that establishes notability. 2.) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as it states that unverified speculation cannot be added and the games existence and details about the game are clearly verfiable, and notable. 3.) The subject is notable. It may even be more notable when the game is has been released. But now, at this moment, there are reliable sources which shows notability, and that's what matters. If there are any complaints to my close, or if something needs to be clarified, my talk page is open for them. Thank you. -- RyRy (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Hearts

[edit]
Tales of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article sites no refs. There is no way anyone could tell that the game ever will exsist. The only link is a unreadable image/box art or what ever it is(see page). Un announced game. In other words, a issue of notablilty Gears of War Go 'Skins! 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? This has a clear indication of the title of the game and that it is in development, and lists some info about it as well. If an English confirmation of the title being announced is needed, I could list that as well. The game has just been announced, but Namco currently hasn't put up a site for it yet, in neither Japanese nor English.Rpgmonkey (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, give it a little time. It has technically been officially announced through Shounen Jump. Namco Bandai will end up putting it on its website in a matter of weeks or months depending...I remember on Famitsu's website, Namco Bandai stated before Knight of Ratatosk was released that the next Tales game would be ToH, which was obviously referring to this. The so called unreadable picture or whatever doesn't seem to be there anymore, since the higher quality scan is there (I'm assuming this meant the really low quality scan that was going around before). Cutepresea (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the article should be deleted. The image is not helpful or even considered a ref! More like somethng to add to the VG infobox. Like i noted, should be deleted. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is very helpful. It is perfectly clear, shows what has been added to this article, and is a completely perfect way to show that the game has been announced, and that this game exists. Not every external link or reference has to be in English, and even so, I gave an English reference that lists most of the info we know, and used the scan as an external link to show other things, like the character design being by Mutsumi Inomata, and for things like the Japanese forms of the names and art of the characters that the English reference cannot show clearly. There's little reason this article should be deleted when it is a confirmed part of this series, there are references, and there is an adequate amount of info to get an article started.Rpgmonkey (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just added that ref after I created this AFD. Can't trick me thank you. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 23:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to trick you, the reference was only put up to show proof that the game had been announced and exists. But if all you wanted was a reference, you could have properly asked for one in the discussion section or put one up yourself. Saying the article was going to be deleted or asking for the article to be deleted was a bit overboard when there's lots of references that can be pretty easily found.Rpgmonkey (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being sore about it, Gears. There isn't anything that says you can't put up a ref after an article is put up for deletion. 67.232.244.124 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious strong delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Pete Fenelon (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*Delete per WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't been released yet, it was just announced in an article in Shounen Jump (the scan is linked in the article) and mentioned in this Famitsu article (before its title was announced, claiming the next Tales game would start with H). Cutepresea (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the article imply that it has already been released? (Don't answer that, just flustered.) MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wp:crystal does not apply here since it states that unverified speculation cannot be added and the games existence and details about the game are clearly verfiable. The game is from a notiable series. The content may be a little thin at this point but the is not a good reason to delete. Also if the article is written in such a way to imply that is has been released it is a simple matter to rewrite it too clearlfy that it is a future release. I also don't see why the nominator is telling the deciding admin the the sources were added after the AFD because there is no rule against adding sources after an Afd is created and it would make no sense not to count them. It is a farly common occurance. --76.66.185.109 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be much clearer that this game is not released now. The future game template has been added by someone and I also changed the lattest title to an uncomming title to clearlfy that point. --76.66.185.109 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep as per the same reasons 76.66.185.109 mentioned. Cutepresea (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are you saying it was unreadable because it's in Japanese or because of the quality? If it's the former, then some of us CAN read it. Cutepresea (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, just curious, do you have any one reason to disbelieve? Like, any reason in the universe? An image does not have to be able to be used to be trusted as a reliable image. To assume it's fake is assuming bad faith. And unreadable? Excuse me, are you implying that you not being able to read it means no one on this Earth knows how? "I don't know what it says, so it can't be used, despite the fact that content such as this is allowed to be used". The fact is that based on your reactions towards the image and the reffing of the page, you seem to WANT it to be deleted for reasons outside of notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, three things. One, Link, chill dude, I am assuming good faith and pleading my case. Second, I am saying it's unreadable because it's in Japaneese. And lastly, I only want the page to be deleted because of natablity. Now, you can take that how ever you want, but thats the staright truth. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unreadable? The only way it could be unreadable is if every single Wikipedian could not read Japanese writing. Is this what you're implying?
Well, we've clearly established it exists. And that it's a video game in an extremely well-known video game series. And it's made by an extremely well-known developer. And we've seen screenshots of it. And we've seen plenty of information about the game. Your only argument against the article is the language the information is written in, which is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again my friend. If "we"(who ever "we" are that you refer to) have seen so much info and news and etc. on this game, then why hasnt it been added to the article? King Rock (Gears of War) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think "we" = the mass of people who know that having a release date, platform, several screenshots, coverage in the biggest Japanese video game ever made (a full page even), information, two confirmed characters, a notable developer, a notable publisher, a notable character designer, and character art = notability. Gears, just a little advice - admins don't bother to pay attention to people in AfDs when all they say is "despite all that, I still think it's not notable." Why? Got any reason to assume such a thing? - A Link to the Past (talk)
And I actually just read your argument. An unannounced game? What, exactly, makes it unannounced? The only reasons I could see would be "Japanese announcements don't matter", which would be pretty bigoted of you to push as your argument, or "Famitsu is not reliable enough", but on that point, I can only think that them being Japanese would be the only concern, since Famitsu has been the first to reveal many, many games in its 1,000+ issues. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay look ALTTP. I dont care a rats butty who developed a game(my 12 year old grammar is kickin in), okay, one, who cares if the mass of people saw info, unless it's offcial and readable on the English Wikipedia, then I dont trust it, and if thats the only ref at the time, that article will be put up for deleteion by me or someone else. Now I dont have time to go bak and forth anymore. Good buy. King Rock (Gears of War) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look, we're ALLOWED to use nonEnglish sources here as long as we give a decent translation--which HAS been done. Cutepresea (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed thank you to end this "bak and forth". Your argument to delete has no place in the AfD at all. At no point on this entire Wikipedia does it say that a source has to be in English. So yes, please, stop this "bak and forth" of you citing no reason supported by policy and me repeatedly pointing out every wrong in your argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the unreadable thing goes right out the window there, because we're allowed to use sources that aren't in English as long as we give a decent translation, which was done in the article. Cutepresea (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, during my time away, when I retyurned to look at the artricle, I indeed agree that the article deserves not to be deleted. King Rock (Gears of War) 12:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was "deserving" before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is little reason for this article to be deleted. I gave the reference I used to make this article, which is the scan I provided. The article I made is a near-perfect translation of what's said in the magazine, or provides the information given within the article. That's perfectly acceptable here. An English source is needed? I gave one that says exactly what is on the scan and what I read. You need more? There is a very large amount of other references that a google search can find, that will give the exact same information I just said within the article. It has also been changed to imply that the game is not yet released (I apologize if anyone thought otherwise). Deleting this article is only an act of redundancy when the official website for the game is open, and the exact same info that has been said will be put up all over again, if not even more information.Rpgmonkey (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Keep Yea, english sources would be nice, but a quick google search on the name brings up the usual English-based Japanese-gaming trend sites with magazine scans, translations, and the like. Even if the game doesn't come to fruition, it's been covered, thus notable. --MASEM 05:46, 7 July 2008 (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.
More