Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy

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. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is about a re-release of the first three Ace Attorney video games, but goes against

MOS:VG#Dealing with remakes

: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. [...] If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.

As is, the article's development section is massively padded with things such as release dates, what date the release dates were announced on, what news publication the release dates were announced through, what date the trailer was revealed, and so on, giving it the false appearance at first glance of a well developed section... but no actual development information. As such, I recommend that we redirect this to List of Ace Attorney media#Compilations, with relevant reception information covered in the series article and/or our articles on the individual games. Alexandra^IDV 02:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra^IDV 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You yourself said If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design... the article has such a thing with a potentially vast reception section due to the many, many distinct reviews of the Trilogy collection. I see this as a clearly distinct game from the Nintendo GBA/DS versions, with the art having been totally remade and gameplay features added. Also, this qualifies as
WP:WRONGFORUM as I can never imagine this actually being deleted, even if it was redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- It says "as well as", not "or". Rescinding the second requirement opens up the door for having individual articles for every port of every single multi-platform game. Since there is essentially no content to merge, and redirection is a common outcome of AfD discussions, I didn't see this as an inappropriate venue - I don't exactly mind converting the discussion into a merge proposal if that's deemed more proper.--Alexandra^IDV 10:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plenty about its distinct design (the second requirement) can be extracted from the reviews. For example, drawing from this review: The Ace Attorney Trilogy collection on Switch features completely redone art that breathes new life into the crazy world the game takes place in. One small but significant change is the addition of a magnifying glass icon in investigation segments that makes it easier to tell where you’re supposed to check for evidence. Besides the addition of multiple save files, there isn’t much else in the way of quality of life updates. While the games aren't by any means a massive overhaul of the originals, it's at least enough to qualify for their own article as they are not exact duplicates bundled together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, I did not consider this - depending on how much development-related information can be mined from RSs, that could work. The MOS cites this as the minimum of what a development section should be for this type of article, so we should see how much we can get from the reviews.--Alexandra^IDV 23:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by
MOS:VG#Dealing with remakes. I have concerns however about the soundtrack section. Is it really necessary to pad the article out with a full track list? I believe the current MOS guidelines tend to discourage a comprehensive listing of tracks unless there is significant coverage about that aspect of the subject? Haleth (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Haleth: That can probably be moved to Music of the Ace Attorney series as it's not exactly suitable for the Trilogy article. The section doesn't even describe the soundtrack of the game, but rather, a collection of remixes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if the meaningful content can comfortably fit into the other articles about the series, otherwise keep without the padding mentioned in above posts. Unless I’m quite mistaken, this is little more than a port with no significant changes beyond making it fit larger screens, so merging would be preferable. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call totally remade graphics, totally redone UI and added gameplay features significant changes. I agree that if it was just 1:1 with the Nintendo DS version, like the WiiWare one, it wouldn't be worth an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to coverage in reliable secondary sources separate of the original games. This version has attracted a reception of its own and is easily cited. Not that metacritic should be the only standard but it shows numerous publications treating it as its own entity. There are sufficient distinct aspects about this topic. It can't hurt to
WP:IMPROVE how the articles relate to each other through headings and blue links. Jontesta (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep: I think the situation is comparable to BioShock: The Collection and Borderlands: The Handsome Collection, both of these articles survive till now. The difference between this and a simple remake perhaps lie with it being a compilation game that bundles several games together, forcing reviewers to review them again. However, the article needs to demonstrate a stronger case for why this couldn't exist as a section in the parent Ace Attorney article. OceanHok (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above This is definitely an encyclopedic article that fits in very well with all other existing articles. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2020 (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.