Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantasy Star Generation 1

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 merge to Phantasy Star (video game). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star Generation 1

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

Fails general notability guidelines.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess merge or redirect to Phantasy Star (video game). Although there's a review at 1up.com and a preview at IGN. --Mika1h (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That really isn't enough to make this article a start-class.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirects and enhanced redirects are, as far as my experience goes, always a subsection of the original game's article. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- dont you mean remakes?Lucia Black (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it to Phantasy Star (video game), and I would suggest doing the same for Phantasy Star Generation 2 into Phantasy Star II.--十八 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to a subsection in the original game's article. (Removing any of the "Well there's no news on it so I guess it's a Japanese exclusive now guys" type of informal speculation, of course.) I agree with the User above who suggests doing the same to PSG2 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phantasy Star (video game). Not seeing that much reliable coverage, probably doesn't deserve its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:05, 29 June 2012 (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.