Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBsupreme (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 27 December 2009 (removing what appears to be a duplicate signature (?) feel free to add it back if this wasn't a mistake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Battle Raper

Battle Raper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

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

Delete. Seriously? I can't even believe this article exists in the first place. Battle Raper is a non-notable game, where the objective is to "strip, grope, and sometimes actively rape the female character." It lacks non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable third party publications. Merry Christmas, JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I suspect the nom may be correct. I find a passing mention in a conference paper a journal article I can't access at the moment, and the other hits in Google Scholar and News are foreign language ones. LexisNexis news search finds just four articles with passing mentions. Haven't gone through all web search results, there is more substantial coverage on the blog of the American Sociological Association's magazine Contexts. Unless there are some other sources hiding out there (maybe video game or feminist publications), at most this could just be mentioned in Video game controversy. Any reason why you didn't bundle Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) into this AfD? Шизомби (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "Battle Raper" has been mentioned frequently in connection with objectionable Japanese video games. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. Notability and verifiability are the primary concerns. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep it has had some third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Google news archive articles appear to be mainly passing mentions in the context of Amazon.com banning Rapelay, another game by the same developer, unless the foreign ones have more. The question for me is, are there enough RS and enough significant coverage to be able to write a reasonably detailed article, even just a short one, even if all the Battle Raper WP articles are merged? Merging and redirecting into the developer Illusion (company) and mentioning in the Video game controversy I could support. Шизомби (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep/merge - Between Battle Raper, Battle Raper 2 and Battle Raper (series) there's at least one article too many for the relatively few sources available, probably two. Doing a merge either way would result in an article at Battle Raper. Nifboy (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I had the reaction I expect a lot of gamers will have: "wait, that's infamous, there must be sources.." Actually there isn't, neither in the article or coming up from a search. The only thing I can come up with is a few mentions in the news results, all of which basically say "in BR the player has to beat up and rape women." That's hardly the basis for an article. I found no strong results for BR2 either (which would just as easily come up from a search for "Battle Raper"), the other articles should be bundled as suggested by Schizombie. Totally non-notable beyond a passing mention in any video games shock horror type article. Happy new year. Someoneanother 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates