Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momotaro Dengeki 2: Momotaro Thunderbolt

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 redirect to Momotaro Densetsu. The consensus is to redirect (which I'm going to do), but Momotaro Dengeki 2: Momotaro Thunderbolt seems like an unlikely search term, so I'm also going to create Momotaro Thunderbolt, and have that redirect to the same place. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momotaro Dengeki 2: Momotaro Thunderbolt

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

I took it upon myself to completely rewrite it a while back in copyedit attempt, but it's been sitting around as an unsourced stub ever since. Today, two Google searches confirmed my fears: neither this search nor that one showed any results from independent, reliable sources. It appears to not be notable in the slightest, and as result, it'll pretty much just sit here like this forever. I believe we should delete it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese wikipedia has more info. 桃太郎電劇2 85.76.80.67 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. However, I see that most of it is related to in-game features, and that no additional real-world information is provided. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momotaro Densetsu, the series article. With no sources in the article, no sources to steal from jawp, this topic lacks significant coverage. czar 23:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's still nothing actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 1 July 2016 (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.