Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pump It Up

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. I'd ask @SteveStrummer: to start an WP:RM about the request to rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pump It Up

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

No citations to establish notability. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are numerous book sources that mention the game in a historical context, but none I could find that cover the subject in depth. There may be Japanese language sources though. I will change my view on notability if anyone can identify sources that raise this subject's notability so that it meets the primary criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 16:52, 21 June 2014 (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) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article are weak, but this looks to be a huge series of arcade games mostly in Korea. The company claims there are 405 in the US. The home game is notable by itself [1] and [2] for example. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not itself reason for keeping, but not only is this article available in several languages, but the Korean Wikipedia has a big navbox dedicated to the series. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see we have a less substantial navbox of our own. Here's the thing, though. I just went through every related page on every Wikipedia it exists on and the source Hobit pasted above is the only reliable one I've seen from across all of them. It seems to have an active fan community (LiveJournal groups and whatnot), and I would speculate they're largely responsible for the level of unsourced detail across Wikipedias. As of now I'm leaning towards keeping the article about the series but merging the individual games into it (certainly not sources to sustain each individually), though the latter is, of course outside the domain of this AfD. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So while the article's in poor shape, with details outside WP:VGSCOPE and no referencing, the series meets the GNG. The series has listings on Metacritic with reviews from reliable sources (even though this was a decade ago). A cursory WP:VG/RS search shows that this topic is notable as a Dance Dance Revolution clone. The series article is a good place to hold the titles of the series that don't have enough individual notability for their own articles (probably all but three or so, if we're only counting those with online and English sources). czar ♔ 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This page shouldn't be the primary topic of Pump It Up (disambiguation). Pending the AfD outcome, it should be renamed to Pump It Up (videogame) or something. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (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.