Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes

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 (WP:SNOW), procedural nomination with unanimous consensus against deletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is an ongoing edit war over whether or not to keep this page as an article, or redirect it to another location. The two opposing arguments at hand (as I understand them, judging by the edit summaries of the history) appear to be that 1) the subject is not independently notable as the game is not out, little meaningful information is available in sources, and what is available can be adequately covered in related articles, and 2) that there are numerous other articles about games that have not yet been released (such as Breath of the Wild 2) which are nonetheless retained. I've not been involved in editing this page, and do not personally have any strong opinion as to which is the right course of action here, but it's clear that this is a topic in need of a discussion. As such, per WP:BLAR, I'm taking the initiative and starting one up. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Visual arts, and Entertainment. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved either, but @Melodia, Scope creep, Padenton, Haleth, Djungelurban, and Bbb23: are. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really feels like a failure of WP:BEFORE. This game has getting dedicated third party coverage for years. A game doesn't not need to be released to be notable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This has gotten on-going coverage in reliable sources ever since 2020, that can easily support a dedicated article. We don't only keep media articles for media that has been published.--Alexandra^IDV 14:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's notable on multiple levels, both from its legacy as a successor of well known game franchise and also the success of its Kickstarter. Any dismissal of this game's notability reeks of "well, I haven't heard of it so therefore it doesn't matter". Besides, one of the things that an article like this is supposed to cover is the production and when better to cover this than during its production. And even if it somehow were to never come out and get cancelled, I'd argue it would make it even MORE notable as the biggest gaming Kickstarter cancellation of all time. Either way, this game will be, and already is, highly notable. Djungelurban (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others - it's a standalone game and a notable one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serge and Alexandra—enough coverage to justify an article. Certainly not perfect but it just needs some work, not deletion. Some really poor editing behaviour on show prior to this AfD; "Restore" is not a valid edit summary the first time, let alone the third—especially when blanking a page and even more so when reverting not one but four experienced editors. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that too. Some experienced editors I respect made some strange calls on this one. I don't if there's more going on here than I'm aware of or what. Am I missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. it's so bizzare.....like someone reverted the blanking, did some edits. The article got blanked and redirected again, and then said person changed the redirect to the 'companion' game (which as I said in the edit summery makes NO sense whatsoever, it'd be like if back then someone redirected Final Fantasy XII to Final Fantasy Tactics Advance). Really not sure what people have against this game. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what's been pointed out above. /Julle (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea that it's too soon for an article until the game is released does not follow what has been done for thousands of other games. WP:MOSVG even discusses upcoming games as articles: Category:Upcoming_video_games_scheduled_for_2023, Category:Upcoming_video_games The article could use some work, certainly, but there is a lot of news coverage for the game. The article certainly won't be improved if it keeps getting turned into a redirect. And that it's a single user that's been insisting on this for some reason for over a year is odd. --― Padenton|✉ 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We have a whole category for unreleased games. OceanHok (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably a Snow Keep at this point) - Whether or not a game is released yet is pretty irrelevant as far as whether or not an article would be appropriate yet. Its a case by case basis for each one, depending on the level of significant coverage in reliable sources that it has received. And this is a case where it has clearly gotten plenty of coverage to the point that an article would be entirely reasonable. The bizarre argument in the edit history that until something is released having a standalone article on it means "its advertising" kind of boggles my mind. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm usually pretty cynical about articles for unreleased games, but this one, as it stands, is decently referenced, not particularly PROMO, and there's little doubt that the product's notability will increase when it releases. (ie: It's not just a flurry of press releases that created a sort of fake notability.) If the Kickstarter were still active, I'd be a lot a more sympathetic to the idea that the mere existence of the article was a form of PROMO, but that ended years ago now, so I don't think that argument is valid at all. It's not representative of the reality of how Wikipedia treats upcoming media projects. ApLundell (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ApLundell. I can understand "too soon" for many unreleased games that fail WP:N. But this one passes the threshold for reliable independent coverage. Archrogue (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2023 (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.