Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadouken (2nd nomination)
I agree that Shoryuken should be (or should've been) nom'd as well.  I added the Hadouken image hoping that someone would see it and say "ooh, I've got a book that talks about that fireball thingy, it proves facts a and b you guys got there."  Clearly, no luck with that to date. I looked for |reliable sources on Google and Yahoo (using the kanji and all sorts of English spellings), and none I found (if there even ''were'' any, which I doubt) were of any use in verifying the vast majority of claims (e.g. "the archetypal projectile attack in 2D fighting games", that it's a neologism, or even that two can cancel each other out).  FindArticles turns up nothing, save for stuff on Hadouken!|the shockingly more-notable band.  (Maybe not ''shockingly'', but then I live The Bronx|nowhere near Leeds.)Don't get me wrong, a lot of the article's claims are true, and the rest are certainly plausible (to think I haven't seen them when playing a whole bunch of SF games or that I haven't laughed at Killer Instinct#Jago|Jago's Endokuken would be absurd).  But even the obvious stuff is Circumstantial evidence|circumstantially shown, as opposed to |verifiable, at best here—there's not even a cite of the game manual(s) that would certainly mention the move.  That's not enough for a Wikipedia article, nor do I want it to be.  Even if the move's ''presence'' in other games is trivially verified by playing the games, there's no commentary out there that shows the ''importance'' of the Hadouken (which does surprise me) short of that ''8-Bit Theater'' thing.  I think the various versions should, at most, be described in the articles of games with them and called examples of a special move in the games (and I'd be stunned if WP:GAMEGUIDE even allowed that).  The rest can go in a knol or Wikibooks or somesuch—they're part of the internet too
— User:AnOddName, 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:V (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)