Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. There is consensus that this is not notable at the moment. Several !votes are for draftifying, but also acknowledge that no reliable in-depth sources can be found and draft space is not for storing articles on the off chance that sources become available soon. Randykitty ( talk) 06:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Euphoria (visual novel)

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

Euphoria (visual novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources ( WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS.

The only review is from Capsule Computers, which accepts volunteer writers and does not appear to be reliable ( noticeboard mention). I am not sure about the content of The Anime Encyclopedia, but assuming significant coverage of the game (and not the anime), that would make 1 source. Every other source are product pages, directory entries or very brief listings -- nothing that would come close to significant coverage. The game has simply not received reviews from reliable outlets. Mainstream Western magazines of the time would not have covered an eroge game and I have no way to search adult-rated Japanese magazines on the off chance they have. Custom reliable source search does not return any usable results.

(Article moved to mainspace from declined draft, so taking to AfD since draftify no longer applies. I previously reviewed and declined the draft on the same notability grounds, although a couple new sources were added since.) —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 11:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 17:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's safe to say that major outlets wouldn't cover this due to its extreme subject matter. Whether you think that's a flaw of the notability system that something disgusting but with high production values could get ignored, the fact is that it would undoubtedly be considered non-notable and fails WP:GNG with the current sources provided. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    If new sources are found and this survives deletion it should be moved to Euphoria (video game).-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    It is a Visual Novel, not a game. The text-to-play ratio lies heavily for the text (and other means of VNs). Also, it's euphoria, not Euphoria. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    This discussion came to the exact opposite conclusion /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_95#Visual_novel_as_a_genre and I haven’t seen anything newer to discount that. Also, attempts to remove visual novels form List of video game genres have failed for the same reason. Finally there was a clear consensus in December 2020 to move Clannad (visual novel) to Clannad (video game) for reasons similar to what I mentioned. Long story short, the idea that visual novels are not video games is not the current consensus.-- 67.70.101.238 ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    ZXCVBNM, how does this review fails to fit in as a notable source? It is (among other things) an established review site, with a cadre of writers and more than adequate Alexa score to witness for its notability. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    Even established sites like that may not count as WP:RS, and Alexa scores do not count in determining reliability. For Wikipedia's standards, which are very stringent, Lewdgamer would be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source. Often, if something is not from an established and widely-recognized news organization, websites are vetted by experienced Wikipedia editors to determine if something can be counted as a reliable source or not. For anime/manga-related topics, for example, you can find a list of reliable sources here: WP:A&M/RS. Sandtalon ( talk) 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    You didn't get my meaning as to the significance of Alexa rank: it proves this site/online magazine is accepted and popular. As to the rest of your arguments, I think they are circular. Instead of arguments why this site isn't a valid source, The claim is basically "it's not a reliable source because it isn't".
    I am aware of the recommended list for anime and manga, however none of the sources there specializes in eroge, as evident by searching for explicit eroge coverage. This one does. It stands through what Wikipedia need as a reliable source on its subject. It holds a cadre of editors and journalists and cover the genre pretty well. Really, it's all that we can ask for in an eroge valid source. It's mission statement fits in perfectly - LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition.
    Of cource, you may think that explicit eroge shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. This is a valid sentiment, but with Wikipedia's coverage of hardcore porn I believe it is moot. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    All that being said, I think we should discuss adding lewdgamer.com to the reliable sources, for eroge content. Would you object raising this in the anime and manga sourcing? אילן שמעוני ( talk) 02:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    If you want it to be added, raise it on the talk page of that list of anime/manga reliable sources. Also, with the Alexa thing, just because a site is popular doesn't mean that it is reliable. To give an extreme example, the Daily Mail is very popular, but it in no way is reliable. Popularity is no measure of reliability. As for circularity--yes, it is kind of circular, and you can take issue with Wikipedia's epistemology (I don't think it's perfect myself), but the fact remains that it is the English Wikipedia policy that has been reached by consensus. (The specific guidelines are: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") Sandtalon ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Some private view, not affecting this discussion: I have heard about euphoria years before I actually read it, and from many sources (none of which is acceptable as source. I talk about discussions in forums, reddit etc.). So for myself, I am sure of its notability. Of cource, the fact I know this is irrelavent. But I will say - euphoria stands out high in the genre for its depth as well its high-quality delivery of a very shocking story. Both its fame and notoriety preceded it - years before it was translated to English. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was able to find two sources from the Japanese language wiki article. https://www.menscyzo.com/2021/04/post_189102.html this one is run by Cyzo [ ja and is an adult-oriented news site. Not entirely sure of how credible this one is https://otapol.com/2017/08/post-83121.html. curious if other people think just the first one would satisfy WP:GNG. Daiichi1 ( talk) 22:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    I believe OTAPOL is published by Cyzo as well. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Here's two reliable sources for the article: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2014-08-09/mangagamer-adds-euphoria-the-house-in-fata-morgana-eden-visual-novels/.77467 and https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2016-05-21/mangagamer-announces-new-titles-hardcopies-and-anime-expo-guests-at-acen/.102369 I may add them shortly, or someone else may. (In addition, and I know this isn't in the GNG or anything, but I would be in favor of inclusion because it has an anime adaptation, which to me, indicates at least some amount of notability.) Sandtalon ( talk) 01:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    These sources are not significant coverage and are only a little better than press releases (one of the is a literal press release). —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 09:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep is a solid decision at this point. At this point it is safe to say that numerous sources point to the same mark. While individually they may not follow the "trusted source" guidelines, the sheer number and the fact that WP:A&M/I totally lacks any coverage of eroge sourcing that may be used are less relevant. As a side note, the unhealthy issue of no trusted sources for eroge content must be addressed. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    That's not how WP:GNG works. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 12:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    WP:GNG is irrelevant to a genre that it does not cover. Using WP:GNG as-is will dictate deletion of any explicit eroge content. In other words, as of now WP:GNG is not relevant to extreme eroge content.
    This is an issue that should be addressed, either by less-preferred discussions such as this one that struggle to determine each article by itself, or by a definitive guidelines how valid sourcing of such content must be done. Since the latter is not available now, we are forced to cast verdict by the former. As I said the sheer number of less-than-acceptable sources combined proves notability. I admit that I do not like this procedure but as it stands its the only thing we can go on. Again - as is, extreme eroge is out of the scope of WP:GNG. Please address this argument. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am still undecided. Daiichi1 did some great finds, as both sources he cited have non-trivial coverage of the VN and seem reliable. However, WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." And that is the case here, where both are owned by the same organization, Cyzo. So we'd still need more, and I will try to check all possible Japanese sources and hope to find something. ANN citations above do not establish notability, as the first one is citing the announcement, and the second one is an actual press release ( WP:PRIMARY). Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral, leaning Weak Keep: From what I've read in the AfD, it is possible that the required sources needed exist, but I'm not quite convinced yet. Link20XX ( talk) 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The above sources do not constitute significant coverage. It would be impossible to write an article that does justice to the topic based on the above sources: The ANN articles cannot be cited for anything, being a press release and an "article" that almost entirely quotes another source. Someone with a stronger stomach than me can wade through the Cyzo articles' reliability, but those citations are not strong enough on which to base an entire encyclopedia article.
    As for the argument above, no, the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them. czar 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    Also do not draftify. If the source material does not exist, draftifying is an end run around AfD. None of the below material has satisfied the aforementioned fundamental lack of sources. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
User:Czar, can you please elaborate on the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them.? I did not get what it means. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Every article on Wikipedia is justified through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( the GNG) There is no exemption or "out of scope" from the GNG, as implied above, nevertheless an exemption for "extreme eroge" topics. czar 22:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, there should be such exemption. else any article about a subject that did not yet got a list of reliable sources gets automatically deleted, which is a. an absurd, and b. bad for WP declared intention to cover all subjects. In such cases the list of reliable sources must be expanded to cover the neglected subject. Alternatively, some subjects (such as extreme hentai) may be declared "out of bounds" - I personally don't think this should be done, but maybe that's just me. Following the rules is good, but when the rules are found lacking common sense should be used, and the rules should be updated. It surprises me that I am quite alone here who see this as a problem that must be addressed. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
A source does not need to formally listed as a reliable source on a project's list to be considered reliable. Editors are expected to assess sources for reliability on an ad hoc basis in AfD threads, and often do. That said, I don't mean to speak for Czar, but they didn't primarily dispute reliability here, but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. — Goszei ( talk) 07:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you, but now I'm really confused. One of the sources above is a site with multiple registered reviewers (i.e. not anyone can come and publish a review) and at least one editor. In what this site fail to be a source? I thought it's because it's not listed, but apparently that's not a consideration. And another thing - English is not my native language, and I fail to decipher but rather the significant coverage prong of the GNG. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 07:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The WP:GNG can be thought of as three main prongs: significant coverage, reliability, and independence. Editors have generally agreed that an article should be kept if it has more than one source that satisfies all three conditions.
An example of a source that lacks significant coverage is one that only says the topic's name. An example of a source lacking reliability is a blog. An example of a source lacking independence is a press release from a company.
I think most of the discussion above is about whether the sources given are blogs or not. Blogs are not reliable because anyone can make one and say anything they want. The things that separate an average blog from a reliable source are usually (1) evidence that an author was published somewhere known to be reliable (2) there is evidence of meaningful editorial oversight (3) the source has been cited by other sources known to be reliable. — Goszei ( talk) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
To address the LewdGamer review in particular, I think the editors above have raised concerns because we don't have any information on this Rillania person ( [3]), and the authors of the editorials on the site ( [4]) are similarly just anonymous people on the Internet ( [5], [6], [7]). It seems to fall under a "fansite" or "blog". "Reliability" is a bit of a confusing concept on Wikipedia, but it captures the ideas of "credibility" and "authority" of a source. — Goszei ( talk) 08:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks, so I did a bit of searching - basic stuff. LewdGamer has About 400,000 results in Google, and one of the reviewers has over 6,000. I think 400,000 results are well above anything that the editor/admins/site reviewers can reasonably generate by themselves, and over 6,000 seems to me significant. All said, I stand by my claim that LewdGamer coverage of euphoria us a valid source, though obviously others disagree. The high Alexa rating also hints for a site that is popular and not some niche blog, I believe. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 09:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 14:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not draftify. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentioned above are significant and reliable and independent—and, in fact, most are none of those. I looked for sources with the WP:GAMESOURCES custom Google searches and found nothing. Woodroar ( talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 2 weeks later: updated my !vote because I don't believe this is worth being draftified, either. Nobody has been able to find sources that are significant and reliable and independent. LewdGamer certainly isn't reliable, as discussed here. Other editors have mentioned MensCyzo.com and Otapol.com but given no reason why we'd consider them reliable. They don't bear any of the hallmarks of reliable sources, which I outlined here. I empathize with editors who've worked on the article, but here's the thing: if reliable sources are found next year or next month or tomorrow, we're going to have to start over no matter what. We don't write articles and then find sources to support our claims. The sources absolutely need to come first. If sources turn up, or if MensCyzo and Otapo are somehow determined to be reliable, then we'd still need to write the article based on them. Literally everything here is original research or based on unreliable sources. Woodroar ( talk) 21:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. LewdGamer.com answers the criteria for a reliable source. LewdGamer coverage of this title is quite extensive, following both VN and anime releases: [8], [9], [10], [11] and more. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
LewdGamer is not a reliable source. Copying my comments from your WT:VGRS thread here: The writers are pseudonymous with no indication of a background in journalism. In fact, anyone can register an account on the site. There's no masthead listing their editor(s) or editorial policies. They are cited only a handful of times by reliable sources, which suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. Woodroar ( talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Again - registering doesn't grant any access to write articles. Point about pseudonyms is correct, but I don't think it's relevant. there is a clear mission statement: LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 20:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Of course it's relevant. Everything is relevant. Read our guidelines at WP:RS, our supplement at WP:RSP, and discussions at WP:RSN and WT:VGRS. We need to be able to evaluate the article, the author, the editor, the publisher, and how reliable sources treat the site in question. The site itself tells us nothing about itself and reliable sources largely ignore it. The fact that they'll tweet out some vague editorial statement but won't add a masthead or name their editors or writers speaks volumes here. Woodroar ( talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I have provided one more source as to LewdGamer reputation, including name of editor etc. LewdGamer is a reliable source, for the topic in question, eroge gaming. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 07:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Additional sources for euphoria notability:

In this article euphoria is one of two chosen examples of art style.
This article is cited, among others by Joleen Blom, Utrecht University. Also - I do not know if this is of importance - in Lukas R.A. Wilde: Kyara revisited: The pre-narrative character-state of Japanese character theory.
.

Sources for LewdGamer credibility:

DailyDot, Mission statement and editorial team, Ethics policy, Citing LewdGamer as a trusted source, including irl name of LewdGamer founder and quatations, interview with one of LewdGamer editors, and most importantly a case in which LewdGamer reported unethical conduct of one of its sponcers. This conduct on behalf of LewdGamer is a firm testimony of high standards.
VisualNovel.info, has columns by editors with irl names. cites LewdGamer as source. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 08:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

another notability reliable source: CapsuleComputers. Mission statement. Staff. euphoria review. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 08:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Did you read the Daily Dot article? Because it's thoroughly critical of LewdGamer, their staff, and their coverage in general. It also points out their connection to Gamergate—though the site's "head content editor" has walked back their stance to "neutral". The DD article alone is enough to discredit LewdGamer. That a bunch of unreliable sites like visual-novel.info cite them is irrelevant. As I mentioned earlier, a few reliable sources do as well, but it's minimal and suggests that they aren't reputable. The DD article explains why that is.
CapsuleComputers doesn't appear to be a reliable source. They have named writers and editors, yes, but I'm not seeing any background in journalism, and they also don't appear to be cited regularly by reputable sources. As for the Image journal source, it's a single mention in a caption, which is beyond trivial.
I suggest reading the policies and guidelines that I linked earlier. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—it has to be all of those, at the same time—not "the subject is mentioned somewhere online". Similarly, source reliability depends on a variety of factors, including the identities and backgrounds of the writers/editors and how reputable media views them, not simply real names publishing something on a website. Woodroar ( talk) 11:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This is false for the topic at hand. The criticism is regarding LewdGamer acceptance of controversial topics such as rape of minors - which is one of the backbones of extreme eroge.
The rest of the criticism is about LewdGamer's fans Free Speech policy. - again, irrelevant to our discussion. Please read carefully what the criticism is about. It bears no relevance to the issue of the LewdGamer's reliability.
The claim regarding CapsuleComputers lack of reputation from reliable source is also false. It is cited in The Observer in an article about the computer game Metro 2033. (btw, it is also cited in WP article Nero (Devil May Cry), just a tidbit).
Looking into the sources provided more thoroughly before issuing such claims is advisable.
I have already read the policy articles you mentioned.
אילן שמעוני ( talk) 12:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Regarding It also points out their connection to Gamergate - this also, is false. Nowhere in LewdGamer itself there is support for GamerGate threats, and the editor-in-chief denounced GamerGate in twitter. Here again you attribute fans comments to LewdGamer itself. This is once more mixing LewdGamer's strict policy of free speech with LewdGames stance. I understand (and sympathies) with the anger about GamerGate, but it has nothing to do with LewdGame stance. BTW, in case you missed this - I think euphoria is beyond morally wrong. But it's an important, notable and all too popular game. Do not mistake my will to have an article about euphoria with identifying or accepting it. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
You're welcome to bring up CapsuleComputers at WP:VG/S or WP:RSN but I doubt you'll get a different answer. Source analysis is something I've done for years, both on Wikipedia and in my day job, and there's nothing remarkable about CapsuleComputers. They don't appear to employ professional journalists or editors, and they're not cited by reliable sources. Looking through Google News, virtually every mention of "capsulecomputers" is in an image credit—ironically, mostly for content they don't own—and not for their original reporting. That's true of the Observer source you mention. (Also, that's a student newspaper, so we wouldn't consider it a reliable source in any case.)
And back to LewdGamer, the Daily Dot clearly considers all of this important: "It’s hard to write about LewdGamer without mentioning Gamergate", "LewdGamer came about during Gamergate’s first few months, and Caldwell himself was an initial proponent of the hashtag", Caldwell "no longer supports Gamergate...But the language he uses in the Discord and the way his staff manages LewdGamer is endemic of a larger problem in the porn games world", criticism of the "adult news site’s community standards", "catering to a readership that acts like Gamergaters", "squeamish editorial world sending smut peddlers to a site filled with readers complaining about multiculturalism". The Daily Dot criticizes the readers, yes, but it's also criticizing LewdGamer's editor(s) and staff for cultivating that readership. Woodroar ( talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, based on User:אילן שמעוני's effort to look for sources. Although some question the reliability of them, that can be discussed outside AFD. enjoyer -- talk 23:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • How is having spent effort in any way related to notability? They have not demonstrated that they understand RS. And AFD is literally the place to discuss if the reliability criteria of sources for GNG is met. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 08:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Problem is that in this discussion the question regarding source reliability started honest, then answered then started to slip ever closer to non relevant moral judgement of the sources. All the questions regarding source validity had been addressed, the rest is just irrelevant rants that do not contribute to the discussion and create white noise. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 09:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • If moral judgments have been made about LewdGamer, they've come from the Daily Dot source. And I wouldn't even call them moral judgments, but the DD pointing out serious breaches of journalistic ethics—like siding with GamerGate, an obviously false harassment campaign. Look, there's only so much direct source analysis that we, as editors, can do. We can see if a source's writers are professionals (in this case, no) or if their editors are professionals (no), or if they have a masthead (no), or if they've won any journalism awards (no). But eventually, we need to look at how reliable sources treat LewdGamer to see about that "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement. Do reliable sources cite LewdGamer? Only a handful of times, and always with attributed statements to make it clear that it's their source making the claim. Do reliable sources discuss LewdGamer as a source? Only in that DD article, and with plenty of criticism. So at best, LewdGamer isn't a reliable source because there are so many unknowns. At worst, LewdGamer is an unreliable source because the only reliable source speaking to their reputation is decidedly negative. Woodroar ( talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Czar. When you look at the full scope of what the WP:GNG and WP:RS entails, the bar is simply not met with the sources discussed so far. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer: LewdGamer is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Reliable sources to cover extreme sexual gaming. While there aren't many participants, at least two (as of this edit) other experienced editors have questioned its reliability. Woodroar ( talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I have requested help on Japanese Wikipedia, suggest to wait to see if there is a response in few days. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unfortunately I have to agree with the general consensus that LewdGamer is not a reliable source, nor are most of the other sources presented. Link20XX ( talk) 03:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Like I said before in the discussion, I tried to look for native sources to establish notability. Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything aside from Cyzo coverage, making a fail of WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable significant coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Isn't rank 58 in The Visual Novel Database enough for notability? אילן שמעוני ( talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • No, it is not enough. Your issue is that there aren't enough reliable sources that would be enough to keep this article, regardless of "popularity." Popularity is not notability, and 58 isn't as high of a number as you are making it out to be. As The Visual Novel Database is itself a wiki (they even state so on their front page) it is not reliable. As I've stated before, print sources may be your key to keeping this article. lullabying ( talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: The article in itself has problems mainly with WP:ORIGINAL, as I can see some original analysis in the article that is not present in any of the articles. I'm inclined to give it a second chance because it does have a manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation, so it's somewhat known. However, sourcing still does seem to be an issue. Perhaps you can try looking for print sources. lullabying ( talk) 18:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. I concur mainly with lullabying. Searches for sourcing have not produced a satisfication of GNG, but the ones found do uniformly mention the game's notoriety/infamy in the eroge community. A manga adaptation and an OVA adaptation are further suggestion that there's some notability here. I think this circumstantial info is enough for a second chance at finding sources. — Goszei ( talk) 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Notability: The game ranks 58 in popularity in The Visual Novel Database. It also has top rankings in several categories. Safe to say this covers notability. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 20:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  • That doesn't indicate notability since The Visual Novel Database is a user-submitted database, meaning anyone can edit entries. The front page even states "This website is built as a wiki, meaning that anyone can freely add and contribute information to the database, allowing us to create the largest, most accurate and most up-to-date visual novel database on the web." This means that the source may be unreliable. You should probably look towards print sources as I've previously suggested. lullabying ( talk) 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • It rather shows quite accurately popularity, as it's voter's base is over 14,000 people. If a VN is very popular (rank 58 is really high) isn't that denotes notability? Surely, WP has to cover the top VNs there are. I would be very surprised if not. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • "Popular" doesn't mean "notable." See WP:POPULARITY. lullabying ( talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Popularity is only related notability in the sense that the more popular something is, the more likely a subject is to have third party significant coverage. It doesn't help if you can't find the sources though. Page views at an enthusiast website absolutely doesn't prove notability in the Wikipedia sense. I feel like multiple people have already mentioned this. You really gotta drop this approach. It's a dead end. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It may be dead end, but I appeal to common sense. There are no sites that covered this topic, hence we can only judge popularity through other means, and The Virtual Novel Database is an excellent place to judge VNs popularity. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 00:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per lullabying and Goszei. Link20XX ( talk) 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't particularly support draftifying, but if it goes that route there needs to be some sort of condition there, like WP:SALTing and/or requiring sending it through WP:AFC first or something, because there's some WP:IDHT sentiments going on with some of these keep votes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:DRAFTIFY says AfC is used in cases like these, which was my assumption when commenting above. I don't think a pre-emptive salt is needed unless something unseemly happens. — Goszei ( talk) 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
It's literally already been moved from draft to mainspace with the edit summary "problems fixed". That same editor currently doesn't understand how it doesn't meet the GNG. Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore... I'm just saying I don't trust their decision making on the topic of notability or reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I reject the innuendo that I would try to sneak it back. This ad-hominem is totally uncalled for. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Multiples editors now have informed you of the very basic concept of "popularity =/= notability", and yet you continue to fight against it. It's not an adhominem, it's that I fundamentally dont have faith in your understanding in policy and guidelines, and that's why I don't trust you to make call on draft publishing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Citing you: "Not hard to see where this is headed a couple weeks after the article is draftified and no one is paying attention anymore" is a blunt suggestion that I will not adhere to basic rules. This us ad-hominem per se. While you may think I do not understand some rules, insinuating I will blatantly go against basic rules is a personal accusation, and yet you attempt to cover it with excuses.
In this discussion it is evident that while I am at the stage of learning EN:WP rules, I adhere to them. The question of reliable source, for example, went on to me doing evident effort to find sources that adhere current guidelines. There is no basis to the accusation I will blatantly try to work behind the back of the participants in this discussion. This is both unethical conduct and a direct breach of WP basic ideology. I do not deserve this. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Thats...a bit extreme, but I've struck that part and clarified my point. I still stick with what remains though - your views on reliable sourcing and notability dont currently gel with enwiki's approach, and you're exhibiting a lot of IDHT behavior. That's a valid reason to suggest that, should it be draftified, that it require some sort of extra review before being published, whether that be by AFC, an Admin, or community review. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
That's not the point. The point is I regard rules and consensus as what counts. I do try to persuade, but it's evident here that the majority judgement as to the rules, in my view, greatly outweighs my own judgement about how the rules should be applied. I have tried to open a discussion regarding some modifications to the rules, but not for euphoria which is most likely doomed to be deleted. The point is - discussion, persuasion by arguments, consensus. I totally accept this, and this guides me throught my work in HE:WP, where I function as monitor and apply rules I do not agree with. אילן שמעוני ( talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

General questions: I am familiar with the rules on HE WP, not EN WP. Does breaking a long discussion using secondary header accepted, When a lengthy discussion has clear division? Also: Is mentioning users that participated with delete/draftify/keep considered "canvassing"? (new term to me. We use "rallying"). אילן שמעוני ( talk) 21:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Anyone? אילן שמעוני ( talk) 07:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
This discussion is under a level three heading ("===") so any subheadings should be level four or greater ("====") though split headings are usually discouraged. It's fine to mention users who have participated already when there is new information or a genuine question for them, but mentioning prior participants just to pull them back into the discussion would be badgering/canvassing. czar 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draft: I worked on the page a little bit and I'd rather not have everything deleted. Euphoria is certainly notable in the visual novel genre, but I don't think it quite meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Not really familiar with Wikipedia's polices, but finding credible sources for this game seems next to impossible at the moment. I'm fine with keeping it in the drafts until anything new pops up. Morganstedmanms ( talk) 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines based upon the sources on the article and those brought up in this discussion - reliable sources that cover the topic do so in passing or are a press release, and sources that cover the game more extensively like 'LewdGamer', are unreliable. Waxworker ( talk) 17:59, 9 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Euphoria_(visual_novel)&oldid=1158989157"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE