- 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. Whether to move another article to this title or convert it to a redirect is left as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Patapon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although there are six games in the series. The series is really made up of a trilogy of PSP games that mostly were ported onto PS4 with the exception of the final one. The rest are promotional web browser games that are covered in the respected articles they promote. Overall, three mainline entries isn't enough to make a whole series and Patapon (video game) does a good job at covering the sequels. If consensus agrees to delete, we can also move that article to "Patapon". Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 19:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep I am fully aware that this is a series article and not the article on the actual game Patapon, but I think this article is necessary. There are many, many reviews for Patapon 1 and 2 Remastered, making them "separate" games that the article should be updated to contain. If it was only the PSP games, then I'd probably vote to delete. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like a stretch to try to cover them as separate games. Even if each three entries in the series have a remaster (2 so far), how much can we really expand a series article? They're not really separate games, just ports. In Japan they're not even called remasters. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 18:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As far as I am aware, according to the general consensus of the VG Wikiproject, the minimum threshold for a franchise page/series overview page should be 3 games. There are 3 unique games in the series so far; just because " Patapon (video game) does a good job at covering the sequels", doesn't mean it needs to do so when the sequels and each of their ports/remasters already have sufficient coverage. Haleth ( talk) 08:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As said above, according to what VG Wikiproject sees as a series, three games meet the requirements. And perhaps in the future more entries would follow.
Sykess (
talk)
10:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Sykess: and @ Haleth:, are you absolutely sure about that? I've seen Final Fantasy Dissidia (series), Mercury (video game series), and Life is Strange (series) get rejected at times for not having more than 3 games? Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you left redlinks here, instead of a relevant discussion which resulted in the articles no longer existing. I can't see any record of a page and its talk page being deleted as a result of an AfD or abandoned draft. As for Life Is Strange (series), the article exists. Where is the discussion showing a consensus that it's been rejected for not having more then 3 games? Haleth ( talk) 14:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Having three mainline installments are good enough to justify a series article. OceanHok ( talk) 14:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/19#Dissidia (series) page?, I also see Life is Strange#Overall page, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 145#Mercury Hg GA review?, it's a little unclear, one says over 3, while the other says 3 is the cut-off. Regardless, I think the Patapon as a series doesn't get a lot of coverage, just the individual games. For that reason alone, I've looked for coverage on the series as a whole. I can find individual games, but nothing covering Patapon as a series or even a trilogy. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as stated by other editors three main entries in the series is enough for a standalone article, broadly speaking. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note that WP:VG's stance about "3 games is enough for a series article" is merely the absolute minimum requirement. Failing it is an "auto-fail", but passing it is certain not an "auto-pass". It's just the lowest hurdle to overcome. So stances should really be based on more than "there are three games in the series". It should really be about if there's enough content from reliables sources that covers the series specifically that doesn't really fit into the scope of the separate games. (I haven't checked enough to weigh in on that yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The page, as it stands, is quite short, and while it is not an auto-fail as Sergecross notes, it is not an auto-pass either. The article does not really justify it standing alone. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Abryn. The "3 entries is a series" mantra is just a rule of thumb. The mere existence of 3 entries is not by itself enough to justify a series article. It needs development info, it needs reception, it needs specific coverage as a series. I don't see that at the current article. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. We do not and should not rubber-stamp every series that reaches three entries for automatic independent notability. Axem Titanium ( talk) 18:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Patapon (video game) (and then move that article to here). There's no connective glue to tie the games together beyond that they're in a series, and that can be documented in a section in the first game's article. If there was historical development section that said how one game led to the development of the next, that might be a reason to keep but that's just not there. The "3 games" is a necessary but not sufficient reason to have a series article. -- Masem ( t) 15:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect - There's not enough here to warrant a stand alone article. It's a paragraph about each title's basic release data. It's completely redundant to what in each game's individual article. I'm not opposed to recreation if someone, let's say, tripled the size (its small) with reliably sourced commentary about the series as a whole. But as is, it's completely redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see anything worth merging—mostly summaries of the existing sequel articles. Merge from those existing sequel articles into the Legacy section of
Patapon (video game), which should then be moved to
Patapon as the
primary topic. In the absence of dedicated (
GNG) of the series unto itself, the proper route is to build the "series article"
summary style within the main series entry's Legacy section. (not
watching, please
{{ ping}}) czar 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC) - Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NGAME. Bungstnk ( talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Bungstnk: you're the first to say it meets GNG. Can you please verify or explain how a simple a table of three main games and two promotional flash games meets GNG? Otherwise you're falling into the problem of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- How? What's in the article certainly doesn't show that. You can't just come in and say WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In response to many of the keep votes, three games is a requirement but not justification for series articles. There is not much sources say about the series as a whole, and like the nom said, is better to summarize in the first game's legacy section. To the closer: just make sure Patapon (video game) gets moved under this name. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 01:30, 3 July 2021 (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.