Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)

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 for deletion. Merge may be a possibility to be evaluated by active editors on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)

Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Although the article is fairly well written, the subject isn't notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry in the first place. This article pertains to an unlicensed Chinese ROM hack, and not a legitimate product. The article is poorly sourced and lacks much coverage, beyond small references going back to ROM hacking communities. Please see WP:N Wiki22445 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, most ROM hacks lack the coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. This one is no different. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and NeoChaosX. <3 bunny 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of independent coverage, so it fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. NOTE: Game isn't a rom hack, but a programmed from scratch game, which gathered a lot of coverage in very short time. Article covers that clearly. Cartridge also pushes boundaries originally thought to exist on Nintendo cartridges, as the referenced articles state.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The thing is, all of the coverage of this rom is in blogs. None of them are reliable sources, so right now this subject fails the verifiability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Trying to remedy that a little now actually. At the very least I pointed Kotaku.com at it in hopes they take interest in the cart. Every other bit of information I've found anywhere though, even non-blogs, points either to joystiq or cinnamonpirate.com as places to go for further information, making additional references a little difficult to gather for the time being, though that might offer some verification to cinnamon's article if I can cite that somehow possibly?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding a bit of a footnote to this to support that a little, one of the sites pointing to that article on cinnamonpirate.com about the game is insertcredit.com, which has been used several times on wikipedia as a valid reference of it's own. Dunno if that helps out in terms of validity, but there you go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And to boot since I'm on a roll, Joystiq.com, one of the cited sources, has an article here as you can see, which should bolster verification somewhat more, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it is a pirate (cart, not rom), the end result is significant in terms of what can be accomplished with an NES cartridge. Also, if Wikipedia is so concerned with not allowing pirates to be discussed, why is there an article for Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon? 72.234.254.153 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The legality of a topic isn't a reason for deletion: see WP:N and WP:V, which say nothing about legality. The only argument for deletion that the nominator and others have mentioned is "lack of reliable sources". However, this is not true; the article cites Joystiq, which is a gaming news website and not a personal blog (even though it is presented like a blog). See Wikipedia:SELFPUB#_note-4:
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
The same thing applies to Kotaku and Insert Credit, so that's 3 reliable sources. Besides, the topic came to light only recently, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I believe we should take the time to improve the article and see how it goes. FightingStreet (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete ROM hacks, fan remakes, and pirate versions all ahare one important characteristic: they're not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. This would be, at best a sentence in the Final Fantasy VII article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please re-read WP:N. Notability is determined by reliable sources, not the intrinsic nature of a topic. The topic discussed here definitely possesses reliable sources. FightingStreet (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you know of reliable sources, then add them to the article. All I'm seeing is blogs and a Geocities page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have explained above, with a direct quotation from WP:V, how several of these sites are not unreliable. FightingStreet (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You're misunderstanding the passage you cite. "Some newspapers host interactive columns...(etc.)" refers to "blogs" hosted by sites like the New York Times and written by their columnists. The key word here is newspaper. It certainly doesn't refer to stuff like "Insert Credit" and Geocities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the amount of times those sites have been used as reference and have been proven reliable (Kotaku and insertcredit both have covered major articles from the horses mouth, and Kotaku has had a press relationship with Sony and other game companies for quite some time which they've mentioned). If you're expecting magazine citations it's too early for that: information about the game showed up less than two weeks ago, and a simple search online shows just how much it's spread to cover notability and verifiability. As it stands all a magazine could end up adding would be the same as the other references already state.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's just another NN pirate game, nothing special about it. TJ Spyke 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's already been proven notable if you read any of this or the blasted article. How is just running in with a one liner in the middle of this a valid reason?!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's bee proven to exist (WP:V), not that its notable (WP:N). TJ Spyke 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Joystiq and Kotaku both covered the game, which for a pirate cart isn't anything to exactly sneeze at, especially given the first news of it is less than two weeks old. Additionally the hardware behind it, as covered by cinnamonpirate.com, is unique, which gives some notability as to what the old famicom hardware can do (especially given you're not likely to see many people even bohter pushing the limits like that). How isn't it notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The original game was, and is, incredibly popular and this pirated version has been covered by reputable sources.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability is not inherited. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You're right, notability is not inherited. However, the importance and popularity of the original game cannot be over-looked. Also, the fact that the game has been covered by several sources shows the game's notability.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Huh, it appears that there are a LOT of similar "de-ports" to the NES in the Chinese pirate market. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has been covered by multiple popular gaming blogs, and is notable because it seems to have pushed the limits of the Famicon. Not to mention, the coverage it has gotten in such a short amount of time is respectable, seeing as the original post (at Cinnamon Pirate) was only a week or so ago. Robert the Small (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 08:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep legality is not a requirement for inclusion, nor a blanket term that can be used to make things not notable. This topic has had coverage in reliable third party sources, and is notable within the context of commercial piracy in general. User:Krator (t c) 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per KFM. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Never ever have I heard of this remake. If it's notable enough, it can be merged into Final Fantasy VII. The Prince (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. FightingStreet (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but the sources do. One of the refs (6 in all) is from GeoCities, which is not a reliable source. The Prince (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The page in question had both box and and screenshots of the game so it was in the external links anyway. The citation it was used in was regarding the game's difficulty (other statements had come up in the other sources as well, but there was the issue of reusing a source to death). Now given the content of the site citing an issue with it being on geocities is a bit absurd given it would be a non-issue on a paid domain with exactly the same information. As far as you not hearing about it, why is that a relevant factor? I haven't heard of half the stuff here on wikipedia but that doesn't leave me questioning the notability of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I said that because I'm quite familiar with FFVII and its sequels and remakes. If it really was notable, I probably would have heard of it. The Prince (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the account that this has been mentioned on several major game blogs. Yes, definitely not as nice as having it mentioned in the magazines or other major media, but nice enough for now. This thing was only recently brought to public attention, so if kept, it probably needs to be revisited later. Illegality is practically not an issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This should make a very interesting paragraph in the main Final Fantasy 7 article, not its own article, not yet enough notability established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Judge. Well-put. Eusebeus (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Wait, you (Judge) are writing "Delete" yet your explanation indicates that it should be merged, not deleted. Please reconsider you vote. Deletion and merge/redirect is not the same thing. FightingStreet (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I still say "delete" because all but a paragraph of the article would be deleted, so it's not really merge so much as delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Subject clearly fails verifiability. 97.84.166.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you want to participate in the discussion, at least do it properly. It has been established without a doubt that the subject pass verifiability. Even the persons who voted Oppose did not argue or argue much against that. The only supposed point of contention is notability, not verifiability. FightingStreet (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remember to assume good faith WP:AGF. An AfD nomination should not be interpreted as a personal attack. Remember: we're here to contribute to a growing community, not regard it as our personal space. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete [Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information]. There are certain criteria an article must meet, namely verifiability and notability. Notable sources do not include personal blogs, Geocities, and other such material sourced by this article. This has already been said. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem is joystiq, kotaku and insertcredit all are not personal blogs and are recognized as valid sources for other game related articles where the information comes up. If you'd read the above you'd have noticed that we already covered that to death.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't strong enough to warrant an entire article. I think the subject might be a worthwhile mention (a short, referenced statement) in the Final Fantasy VII article, but having an article to itself is absurb. The lack of notable information amounts for the fact that there's really nothing to say about the subject that wouldn't require further verifiability, beyond the simple fact that it exists. The meat of the article is random bits of original thought and research into an otherwise pointless subject. How on Earth you can continue to muster that this is by any means encyclopedic is beyond me. o_0 68.209.235.149 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, and this sounds quite rude but I just woke up, but you're talking out of your butt and not reading the entire subject presented before you. The sources in question are being shown to be verified sources, not random online blogs. The geocities site in question was addressed earlier this page (and brought into context by insertcredit.com I might add, so it isn't just rrandomly there). You through around "original thoughts and research" even though the statements therin are clearly cited and backed up by other sources used. Then you have the "absurb"ity to claim this is not encyclopedic at all and not being presented and argued for such despite everything being argued for those purposes, and for the finisher you toss an accusation that the keep votes must be rigged despite having no proof and just moments ago shouting "have good faith"? Yeah I'm just not going to say further other than whatever response you use should be very thought out...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom seems notable to me. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment To try and achieve some broader thoughts on the subject, Nintendo and Square Enix have both been sent inquiries on it. Any information or thoughts they offer will end up referenced in the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article provides appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The fact that this is not a "legitimate product", as noted in the nomination, is utterly irrelevant and in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I suspect that many of these "keep" votes assume AfD discussions are a popularity vote. If you've been called here by another user as a personal favor, please keep in mind that this is an attempt to establish a consensus and discuss problems with the article, not cast a vote. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's that good faith you were talking about a moment ago? Ah, subjectiveness. Of *course* someone's running around mustering the troops. How else would wikipedians that have no knowledge of each other or past involvement with one another...wait that doesn't make a lick of sense >:P. Now given you have no proof of that subject, I don't believe dashing in throwing that argument around sjpws a lick of good faith do you?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this an open admission that you're bringing in meat puppets to sway the voting decision? 68.209.235.149 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No such action of the sort is occuring. The people that are voting here too additionally if you haven't noticed save for a few of the Delete voters have long contributions to wikipedia. If anything given this unfounded accusation and the previous tirade that was merely your own opinion and not fact really I don't see further reason to bother with you or your sillyness. If you wish to make an accusation that doesn't revolve around "this isn't going my way something must be wrong", make it and back it up. Otherwise don't disrupt this debate further with nonsense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article was brought to my attention by someone who was bemoaning its existence. It was after having seen the article I came here to cast a vote to keep. This is a perfectly valid subject. It isn't just some random ROM hack that some guy decided to share on the internet, and the delete proponents need to stop misrepresenting the subject that way. FYI, your attempt to invoke speedy deletion just exposes that you are, for some reason, personally desperate to get this article deleted. Why not tell us your real motivation? You clearly aren't interested in following WP policies. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll remind you both one more time to assume good faith. AfD discussions are NOT for personal arguments. Please discuss the article, its problems or possible resolutions. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment When I first started my account on Wikipedia, I was called a single-purpose account. Yet I’m still here months later, editing, creating pages, and commenting on articles. My own experience has shown me that when people call others “SPAs,” they no longer can argue their point and must use insults. I’m not saying that this happened this time, but if you want a discussion, have one without labeling others and debate their points, not the people.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge with Final Fantasy VII. The sources are troubling. For example, instead of ref #11 being a personal communication with customer service representative, at the very least, some documentation (e.g. written correspondence or email exchange) should be filed with the OTRS and then the reference to the OTRS archive should be added to the article. Racepacket (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah sorry about that one, it ended up put there just some citation existed given it was the only response I had at that time (and was pretty much there to avoid a [citation needed] tag being added tile I could gather better information). It's being removed, and Square Enix's response is being swapped in atm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As noted, I think a one or two sentence mention in the Final Fantasy VII article would be fine, but a full merging of the two would be a bit much, considering the bulk of the article is just filler. I would also only carry over a couple of the references just to establish the existence of the title. It would pass notability as a mention or section to the article of Final Fantasy VII, since it is related by default. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, No merge. It already has coverage in a couple of reliable sources, and this is only going to increase over time. The fact that it is a production of questionable legality ultimately has no bearing on its validity as an article -- it would be pretty amusing if the article was deleted on legal grounds, as every article on crime should then be deleted also. Whether it is illegal doesn't change its notability. A merge is also unreasonable, as there is already a wealth of information about the remake specifically, that it would basically pollute the FF7 article to include all the details there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No one argued legality, just notability and verifiability. The mention of the game's legality was probably in regards to its notability -- the subject of "Chinese originals" (ROM hacks distributed by Chinese "software companies") is not a notable subject in itself. As a general rule of thumb, if a subject is not encyclopedic in nature -- i.e., you wouldn't normally see it featured in a written encyclopedia -- then there's a good chance that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again you say "hack" when it isn't a "hack" but made from scratch. Also given you mentioned "software companies", I would direct you to the site link to the company's webpage at the bottom and choose to argue with them that they are not an actually corporation. And verifyablility and legality have both been discussed here at one time or another on this page. The bottom line in all of this is the game is notable: it does things in its internal structure that even licensed games have not accomplished and is structurally different than any previous ones. How isn't that notable by itself? Then we have the fact that this is a port of FF7, that's for all intents and purposes intact, on a Nintendo system, when the original game signalled the departure of Squaresoft from Nintendo's hardware for Sony. That isn't important either of course. The game getting coverage from blogs that wikipedia itself has recognized and allowed as valid references, and several of which have direct commnications with game companies and company officials. As far as CinnamonPirate.com's own referencing there I point to the fact that GoNintendo.com, a site you'll find used in a ton of references here on wikipedia, copied their article ver batem for their own article, not to mention Kotaku and others when referencing the game linked back to the article, offering a great deal of credibility. And that isn't helping make it notable? How about the fact that it's still very new and if any magazine is going to cover it at the very least, it'll be a little while due to the fact that it's still making rounds and people are still questioning if the game is even real or not. And that isn't an important factor? You tell me, how articles on Pirates vs. Ninjas or forgettable porn stars are things that belong in wikipedia much more than an article that I'm trying to push heavily to get good. Now you want to condemn it then condemn it mr. IP guy, but at least have the decency to take it to my talk page and suggest what could be done to help make it better, because that'd be a lot more helpful all around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You've failed to establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject. The few references of independent coverage are trivial at best, and do not establish fair notability within the notability guidelines. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right -- you cannot justify the existence of one poorly sourced article by pointing out that another one hasn't been taken care of yet. Third, and for the last time, please assume good faith. This means not calling other editors out, not interpreting AfD nomatinations as personal attacks, etc. We are all here to contribute to Wikipedia. Part of contributing sometimes means taking away. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Judgesurreal. — Blue。 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge sources raise issues with notability/verifiability as mentioned though the subject might make a good addition to the FF7 article. 67.142.130.32 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I say keep it for whatever reason. I think every page has a right to live for their own, and to give information about things like this to keep ppl informed of rare games. --98.26.120.149 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty WP:POINT-y keep reason.
  • Merge, since one must not give undue coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blogs don't qualify as reliable third party sources. Hell, who thinks a Geocities link is a good source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP I honestly don't know much about games, and for those like me, indepth info on them here on wiki is a lot more helpful than just a one liner, stating something like game was made at so and so time, for so and so system the end. So I say keep it.--12.104.173.130 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't think geocites or blogs resources are really bad since there are few to none estabilished sites talking about bootlegs or such around the web, so since those sites are commonly used to those intentions, they are very valid sources. On top of that, it's not everyday you see a game as long as final fantasy VII inside a nes cart, it's surely a must keep.--Zsabreuser (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment For those arguing about the validity of the blogs, I direct you to here: Joystiq, Kotaku, Boing Boing, Baidu. If you do a search for GoNintendo.com, you'll find it used extensively in pages here, and it copied word for word the CinnamonPirate.com article. InsertCredit has also seen heavy usage as a reference here in wikipedia, though not nearly as much. The Takooni hires it's posters as shown by the help wanted page, and additionally did an interview with Billy_Mitchell_(gamer), which really doesn't come across as something a non-name site would do. What I'm getting at is all of these have examples of notability, especially the first 4 which have had pages for some time here on wikipedia and if they were not notably, would have seen removal well before now. Just trying to explain a little.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because they're notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia does not mean that they're reliable sources of notability. Being on Wikipedia does not make you a reliable third party source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Then does them having an established relationship with commercial companies make them reliable third party sources?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No. Being on Wikipedia does not matter. It proves to us that they're well-known enough, but not that they're reliable third party sources. And the fact that they got some companies to advertise on their site means nothing. My friend's site once had several ads for various games, including Mercury Meltdown. However, it's certainly not a reliable third party source, and it's certainly not a blog-type site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand what you mean ALttP, but that's not what I meant. Awhile back for example, Kotaku was blackballed by Sony. If you check the page there you'll see the two clearly have an established relationship of an online journalist, not just a fan blog. And I could go deeper there, but take a look at Joystiq.com, which had interviews with several people, including Ryan Payton, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. And Joystiq was one of the first to cover the FF7 Famicom game after CinnamonPirate. I'm not talking about useless no name blogs. I'm refering specifically to sites that have established raport and are handled as online journalists. InsertCredit even did an interview with the people of Hudson Soft, and were present at this year's GDC event. I could go further, but with this much here does this establish them as valid, reliable, notable references?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Blogs in and of themselves are less reliable than a site such as, for instance, IGN or GameSpot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
            • That's not really a fair move though. The question was are these reliable sources, given the facts behind them. IGN and GameSpot are both sites that cover mainstream well known games. You're not going to see articles about games like this on there. G4's Attack of the Show? Maybe. EGM doing a small article on it? Sure. But neither of them would end up saying anything that hasn't already been said by the other sources anyway: at most you'd get more reception points to site. I understand your point, but I'm working with what I have, and trying to argue that, what I have, counts as valid source material by their own merits and weight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
              • A blog can post any number of things, there's no criteria, really (as seen with Kotaku's posts about an ocarina and Final Fantasy VII animated pornography), while EGM does have criterias established. If FFVII Famicom gets an article, it'll be because a reliable source established notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                • That's a bit unreasonable given main stream news about this thing only showed up the last week of february and every site followed since. Magazines won't cover it at least until next month if they do. Hell EGM didn't cover some games of this sort until long after people had heard of them. But the deletion point isn't being brought up in a month or two, it's being tossed out *now*. And while Kotaku I'll concede has absurdity on occaison and certainly not the best crutch, where are the arguments that joystiq and insertcredit are invalid? They don't have any such nonsense. (Additional, Boing Boing has their own share of officiaal interviews, sans absurdity. If corporate faces feel these are important enough to give an interview to, why are they not notable enough for a site like Wikipedia?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • The problem is that all the article HAS is blogs. It shouldn't be hard for IGN or GS to mention it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • Well there is Gameworld Network that did an article on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                      • Which is coverage of the blog's report. It doesn't really do anything but link to what the blog linked to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                        • And you really expect more? Anything on the game from this point on is just going to repeat what's already been said in the blogs. The point is that's not a blog, and is a notable site. I'm making lemonade with lemons here, you can't expect me to make gold out of the same material. This is the best we can get, and IGN if they did anything would do exactly the same: it doesn't pay their writers the same to cover a game like this compared to the original.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                          • Let's say we do count this page. So that's a total of, what, one reliable source? And IGN doesn't typically "copy" from blogs. Blogs constantly cover fan works, and I'm hardly convinced that GWN is that notable in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                            • One is better than none. And GWN is a part of UGO Networks, which lends it a lot more credibility. And that helps a lot for the time being, and offset things a little. I'm not saying it's the be all to end all, I'm just saying this should buy some time, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge per issues with notability. FFVII article already has a short mention of the subject. 67.142.130.40 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That page has a single sentence on the subject, leaving out everything else that can and has been cited. How is mass reduction of cited information a better move for anyone?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete OR merge some info or resources with ff7 article, or give it its own section in that article. No point in having another ff7 article especialy about a pirated game. BUT I dont just say this because of what the other editors pointe dout. ff7 kind of has too many child articles as it is. I dont understand why we need yet another one just about a pirate game no one has heard about (prolly doesnt count as a child article technically but still). Foxit22 (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)— Foxit22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per Judgesurreal777 and Blue. The article hasn't come along much from the time it was created, with a few (non-notable) sources being brought in here and there. This doesn't convince me that the editors are suddenly going to bring in notable sources any time soon after this nomination. As for verifiability, the only thing we can verify is that a copy (a rom) of the game is in circulation, but I can't verify anything about this supposed Chinese developer or the fact that they might have produced this as a physical game cartridge. Right now, I just know that it's a circulated rom, which is something I have serious doubts about the notability of. 64.59.99.130 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment After the discussion with A Link to the Past here over the sources used and their reliability for proving FF7 Famicom's notability, I decided to take things a bit further and ask for an administrator's insight on the matter. He pointed out that a "blog" can be a reliable source for wikipedia citations if the page is known for accuracy and fast checking, especially if it employs professional editorial staff to review stories.(i.e. the fact that The Takooni, Joystiq and others cited there are run in business style and thus have editors check over the stories that they choose to publish for content and reliability. He pointed out that in a nutshell, something that is called a "blog" may in fact be an "e-zine" which is logically equivalent to a trade journal and just as reliable. Additionally CinnamonPirate's owner Derrick Sobodash is considered reputable in the field he's commenting on regarding rom program structure and cartridge design, which makes him professional enough in the field to allow the subparagraph regarding online resource notability from field professionals to in turn apply to his website. Thus that gives several cases of notable online resources. Phew...I'm tired.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into existing FF 7 article. It's an odditiy that bears mentioning, but not notable enough to have it's own page. -- Elaich talk 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The existing FF7 article is already 91 KB long. FightingStreet (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The existing FF7 article needs a copyedit anyway. — Blue。 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isn't copyright infringement supposed to be a concern as well? — Blue。 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the article isn't promoting it, just stating facts about it and keeping them cited. Besides, WP:Censor, no? And if we did opt to remove anything infringing on copyrights, that'd tear away a huge chunk of things.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit, the lack of information on the developer and reaction from the copyright holders of the original game makes the article a bit lacking. My Delete-Merge stance still stands. — Blue。 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I personally contact both Square Enix and Nintendo, and had their responses posted up until User:Axem Titanium removed them citing WP:OR: square's reply is here. They showed disdain as you can see for the game itself. Nintendo of America when contacted refused to comment, tossing me over to Nintend of Japan (who has yet to reply), and denied me a transcript of the conversation I had with them, stating their comment was only "no comment."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Square basically sent out a standard form letter, it's unlikely that anyone at Square really even read the letter or looke dinto it.
  • Keep - The two arguments for deletion are regarding verifiability and notability. Firstly, the information in the article can and has been verified and cited. The sources, although unusual, are strong enough to verify that the subject did indeed exist in the way the article describes. There is the potential that more sources are out there, but in chinese print media dating back to the time of release. It is unlikely that these further sources would do anything more than reaffirm what information is already available. Secondly, the information is very much notable. It is a product, made and developed from scratch (including the hardware cartridge) by an unlisenced third party company. This is a rare occurance. The copyright violation only lends to the notability, rather than detracting from it. Additionally, the fact that it has been picked up by modern gaming media shows that an unlisenced product developed for a retired console is notable for the unusual factors surrouding it's creation. Gazimoff (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - if articles about David Willis, Its Walky! and Shortpacked!(among other things that are not notable) can get pages here, then something that is INTERESTING TO READ should get a page here. Either that, or delete this along with the David Willis webcomic stuff if youre that concerned about "notable"(though I suspect Willis has friends on the WP staff as he's listed as a "famous resident" of La Porte, IN when he is not famous). Point is, "notable" has nothing to do with how WP is run. It's all politics. There are movement sto remove "trivia" and anything else inetresting, because people have it in their heads that this is a legit encyclopedia. Wp is NOT an encyclopedia! It covers many topics that encyclopedias do not, and can be edited by anyone, something else an encyclopedia does not allow. If WP really wants to be an encyclopedia then it should close down user edits and only allow a select staff to edit articles. This is a "wiki", not an "encyclopedia".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2008
  • Delete as nom and several previous comments already pointing out problems with ver/notability. The idea that this belongs in an Encyclopedia is a joke, and is really just a cult interest at best. 124.217.247.233 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Judgesurreal. No matter how many ways you spin it you can't ignore these issues. Verifiability applies not only to the existence of the source but also to assertions made by the article. i.e., "a Chinese software company" is something that needs to be verified in full, or removed from the article entirely. Notability applies to the importance of the subject, as encyclopedic academia. I'm sorry, but a rom pirate will never meet notable criteria no matter how well you reference it. 207.10.232.238 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete and merge infos/regs into final fantasy vii, not meriting an article of its own. looks like the article already has a metion though.209.190.33.10 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete current and salvage some of the references for the mention in the Final Fantasy VII article. Not sure why this spawned a child article. 85.17.237.211 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notice

  • Comment There is obviously a slew of single-purpose accounts, proxies and sockpuppetry going on here, for both sides of the issue. I request an administrator boldly close this discussion promptly pending an investigation of User:Kung Fu Man, the suspected sockpuppeteer. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Utterly amazing how two people vote keep and I speak with an admin to see if there's support for my statements, you cry foul. Again. And we see 4 rapid fire one shot accoutns and you claiming sock puppetry. Again. Sorry, but I'm well capable of standing my ground without trickery. I'm tempted to report you, I'll add: I'd love to see you hide behind that good faith shield after this one. However, I'll be quick to point out that this line shows complete bias against the subject: "I'm sorry, but a rom pirate will never meet notable criteria no matter how well you reference it." <- It really negates the weight of your opinion to say such because anything can be notable. Anything. It just has to prove it's weight and purpose.
  • Oh and Mr. 68.209.235.149, regarding the "calling the troops" line, I direct you promptly to WP:Sarcasm--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the Sockpuppet template from this page as this is not the appropriate place to put it: sockpuppet templates are meant to be placed on userpages, not on AfD pages. 68.209.235.149, if you really want to start a sockpuppet case report about Kung Fu Man, do it on WP:SSP, but I think you would need much stronger evidence than your current assumptions. FightingStreet (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice The game is being covered in a variety of blogs which are reliable, but they are little more than signposts pointing to the original article which is itself not published in one of the reliable blogs. Until these sources start doing some actual research and analysis they're little more than a catalogue of who noticed the original post, that's not the basis of an article. I've no problem with the subject or that it's in a separate article, the sources aren't there yet. Someoneanother 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well repost and condensed, but the other references do add their own info other than only citing the original article, and given they all reference the original shouldn't that lend it credibility? Quality control would cover that too as a notable site wouldn't reference something that was false without a disclaimer, no? (Not disputing you just discussing)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It lends some credibility certainly, but I'm looking for additional building blocks rather than dribs and drabs. The Kotaku, Hobby Blog, Joystiq, GWN and Insert Credit posts, for instance, might be worth referencing for a sentence or two at most, but they're reporting on the blog post and its contents rather than analyzing the game themselves. There needs to be multiple examinations of the game in detail and independent of each other. All the article is right now is a chopped version of a blog post with quips from game blogs looking for filler news. You can't summarize multiple sources to make an article if there's only really one source to start with. If it does get deleted, it can always be reinstated should solid sources appear. Someoneanother 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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.