Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandere Simulator (2nd nomination)

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. Both keep and delete side have some bad arguments that aren't policy based, but consensus does lean very heavily towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yandere Simulator

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yandere Simulator
• Articles for deletion/Yandere Simulator (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Yandere Simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the body of this article, other than the plot and lede, seems to be just WP:ROUTINE. There is some reliable sources that cover it, but that does not always justify notability. Other than the sources, the article seems to be a collection of random information that does not wish to justify the body. Taking into account the numerous WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP situations associated with this article with them being constantly removed for good reason, it should be decided whether this game meets WP:GNG accounting for how the current article presents itself. The sources are fine, but the body suggests that it is just a collection of illegitimate information that doesn't seem to justify how Yandere Simulator is notable. 8ID (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Internet. 8ID (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete To be frank, I think it's really easy for someone to make a standard "but there's coverage" GNG argument. I think this is one of those cases where we should really pay attention to the fact that GNG very carefully notes that these are just "indicators" and a discussion may still find the topic non-notable for an encyclopedia. I pretty much agree with the nominator. There was a flash of coverage, mostly driven by the controversial nature of the game, and then it all dried up. It doesn't seem any reliable sources have appeared in the last 3-4 years, despite the game's rocky development continuing. Nom has already pointed out the BLP issues, since half the coverage is about the developer, and half about the game. If we look at it from an WP:NPRODUCT view, sustained coverage is failed. Frankly, I don't believe there's any long-term significance here. I also want the note that this article has recently required Oversight due to BLP allegations lacking any reliable secondary coverage. The talk page has the details on THAT. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: This is the absolute worse kind of deletion rationale. "There are tons of sources, but it doesn't seem notable". What does that even mean? How are you defining routine coverage? The essay you linked doesn't really support your rationale, either. I see reliable sources about this ranging from its release to a day ago (although, yesterday's coverage was less than pleasant). Clearly it has sustained coverage (and even then, notability is not temporary). Any BLP issues can be taken by locking it, especially when the article is about the game and not the developer. (Although, obviously, the developer will have to be mentioned.) Why? I Ask (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Is the current ongoing controversy (I haven't seen any reliable coverage, only blogs, social media and unreliable sites) about the game, or about the developer? It seemed wholly focused on the developer, with mention of the game being passing. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The current controversy applies to the game too. Here is a reliable source that shows that it is being impacted (voice actors and volunteers are stepping away from the project and the game is explained). Yet despite the coverage, the nature cannot really be included in the article due to obvious BLP issues. 8ID (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see MarySue and TheGamer were both just added to the article. Both I think have been considered questionable sources in the past, with TheGamer being until the Valnet umbrella which are generally seen as not suitable for BLP claims (Screen Rant, Game Rant, etc). -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  My bad if they aren't suitable, I can go ahead and remove them if that's what you want. Jurta talk 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think Mary Sue and TheGamer are reliable if they aren't focused on bloggy, spammy coverage which I do not think this is. But even then, a small mention could be made that they have stepped down from the project without mentioning why to avoid BLP (since grooming is a pretty steep accusation and the sources aren't concretely, super reliable). Why? I Ask (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  There are tons of reliable sources for the original subject of Kiwi Farms, yet any mention of them is not allowed because discussion, not the availability of sources, determined that they are not noteworthy of anything particular. Like Ferret said, they are just indicators and discussion can determine if these indicators are still valid. A good indicator is just by looking at Google News for this year alone. Everything there cannot be particularly included, well, because it does not add to the context of this article and not to mention the BLP violations from sources that are not deemed reliable. Sure, it has coverage, but any sustained coverage from up to now would not be placed in this article due to WP:BLP and the lack of further sources that do not vaguely appear to be just WP:ROUTINE. Like my first point, further discussion is required from other editors to determine if general notability really applies to the subject of this AfD. 8ID (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it does. It was seen as a notable in 2017, so it would still be notable today. Even if it only got major coverage from its release to something like 2018, notability is not temporary. The reliable sources already present in the article from those years is plenty for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed again, just because big time outlets don't often cover the game anymore doesn't make it any less notable. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: There are plenty of reliable sources and the game is incredibly notable. It has billions of views across YouTube and TikTok coverage and has plenty of media coverage as well. This is the sad part about indie games on Wikipedia, since not all coverage is going to be mainstream their articles often don't get enough justice. A part of me feels like this article is only being nominated due to the developer being somewhat of an asshole. I completely understand that and agree, but I think this game getting years of coverage (and in light of recent accusations will probably skyrocket the coverage) I feel the article needs to stay. I don't understand the rationale of deleting this whatsoever. If the worry is vandalism, that's been taken care of for years, the article could just be locked if it's that big of a deal. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC) — MarkJames1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete This is a video game that is still in development; no official release date has been announced nor are there any independent sources which indicate that a formal release may be imminent. While the article has gotten some media coverage, most of this was confined to the mid to late 2010s. There has been coverage recently, but this has focused predominantly on the developer rather than the game. (As 8ID mentioned, these sources carry significant BLP concerns restricting our ability to use them). Fundamentally, I see this as an unreleased product that got a flash of coverage before interest waned. Generally, I would not bring in the WP:NOTNEWS policy or our guideline against creating articles that only received “mere short-term interest” for an article that has received a few years of coverage. However, in this specific instance I think it is appropriate to apply these rules to the article’s coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  It does not matter if the game was released or not. Indefinitely worked on or even cancelled projects can still be notable, so that aspect of your argument means very little. And we also have different views. "A few years of coverage" is more than enough for thousands of Wikipedia pages. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean it's got a completed story, millions of downloads, and a lot of coverage. Minecraft was the same way, and you could argue that Fortnite was never completed. This isn't as unique of a case as it seems. It's for sure a notable game. Not to mention, like another user said, "A few years of coverage" has been more than enough for plenty upon plenty of Wikipedia articles. MarkJames1989 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Generally, when a topic gets several years of media coverage, we'll have enough information to write a comprehensive article covering all of the main aspects of the article in at least some level for detail. This article is not comprehensive; the available sources have given us a collection of random bits and pieces of information, mostly from the first few years of Yandere Simulator's existence. The sources really just do not provide enough information to write a decent article. Regarding unreleased creative works, Wikipedia does generally require strong evidence of likely publication before allowing the creation of articles. For unpublished books, we generally require independent sources providing both the title and approximate publication dates. For unpublished music compilations, we require independent sources providing the title, cover image, release date, and track listing. For unpublished movies, we require independent sources that confirm that principal photography has started. The general trend across these guidelines is that we do not create articles on unpublished works unless independent, reliable sources have confirmed enough progress has been made on the unpublished work that future publication is very likely. This has obviously not occurred with Yandere Simulator. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  These are not comparable. Forms of the (uncompleted) game are out. You can't discuss unpublished books, movies, or albums on the same vein as a game that has been played all over YouTube. The demo itself is already notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The fundamental issue here is that the existing coverage consists of a bunch of bits and pieces of information mainly released during the first few years of the game's development. I'm not impressed by the breadth of the sources and I don't believe that a few years of early coverage on a topic that's been ongoing for nearly a decade amounts to sustained coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see any reasons for deleting the page. Anyway, we have such pages as RapeLay. Why don't we delete it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Shadow666666 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Dark Shadow666666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NegativeMP1 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Eurogamer article, Kotaku article, and the Vice article used as a source in the page show that GNG is clearly passed. Whether or not it's notable because of its own merits or because it's exceedingly controversial don't really matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned, only that it got coverage from major sites, which it clearly did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the developer's a subject of controversy, doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Rickraptor707 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Consistently covered in gaming publications for several years now. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion has been linked to from a major Yandere Simulator subreddit. I’m not sharing the link since there’s a lot of BLP stuff, but the post has gotten hundreds of upvotes and contains comments providing instructions on how to vote in AfD nominations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  A subreddit that hates the developer of the game and yet they still want the article up. Hundreds of upvotes yet you're trying to argue the game isn't notable.

  Something tells me the game is notable. MarkJames1989 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Popularity on reddit and youtube are not part of WP:N or any SNG. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at here. Yes, sources cover this game, but is there enough material for the game to really be anything beyond the state the article is in now? The game is notorious (amongst the Internet, which means nothing for notability) for having an absurdly long development cycle to the point where the situation could be comparable to what happened over at KFConsole, the game will never be finished and most of the coverage comes from stuff from years ago with silence afterwards from most sources up until the developers recent outing as a potential groomer. It's even possible from rumors that the game was never intended to be finished to begin with, and no reception for the game exists. I think cancelled games can have articles, but based on what this game has and will likely have for as long as time lasts, this game and page have no long-lasting value or notability. NegativeMP1 01:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep In addition the the sources provided by others above, here is an additional academic source covering the game:

• Janik, Justyna. (Re)weave the Gameplay. Analysis of the spatial textures in Yandere Simulator. Philosophy of Computer Games Conference 2017.

If there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, then it should be kept, even if we WP:DONTLIKEIT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• My concerns here (as page creator) is finding sourcing that does more than give brief announcement or summarize primary sources. This looks like a good step in that direction. The person in question is a PhD student and it looks like the event was held at a university. The main thing would be trying to establish that this event had significant oversight in what was presented, which would be the biggest difficulty. This book mentions the presentation, but I'm not familiar with the publisher. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• This is better, as it's a PhD dissertation and while the game is used as an example of a larger topic, the author goes into some detail and also provides commentary in a reasonably neutral fashion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Significant coverage by sources such as Vice, Kotaku, Eurogamer, and 4Gamer. WP:GNG is clearly met. Skyshifter ^talk 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep By this logic, a lot of indie games pages would be deleted. I think this is just a classic case of WP:DONTLIKEIT. LordEnma8 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep There is obviously significant and sustained coverage from reliable sources. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep This game has enough SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet GNG, and the coverage was sustained. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: why was {{notavote}} added?--Trade (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because apparently this discussion was posted on the r/osana subreddit. At least that's what the explanation was for its addition LordEnma8 (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • I was the one who added the template. This discussion was linked from r/Osana and (based on the discussion) many redditors were being funneled to this discussion. Many of these redditors plainly did not have any knowledge of our our relevant policies and guidelines. I’m not linking the specific discussion as doing so would violate BLP, but I believe adding the template was fully justified. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think that's fair to add if you didn't submit the nomination. MarkJames1989 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    It's routine and not the responsibility of the nominator. Anyone can add it, if brigading efforts are being attempted. It's not the first time for Yandere fans/detractors from reddit to do so. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    Wouldn't the discussion of the article talk page violate BLP as well? Trade (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    There's a very careful line in discussing the viability of sourcing and developing information, and posting allegations in "wikivoice" to the article itself. Oversighters are aware of the discussion and at the moment it seems no further action has been deemed necessary. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Yandere Simulator is still under development and given the ongoing grooming allegations that left the team resigning in protest, the game will never be fully completed. Therefore, we can keep the article, but should include a section to mention the scandal. 9March2019 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment:I strongly disagree. According to a news article on the talk page, the alleged incident never happened and is such the very definition of a hoax.--Trade (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    Even though he admitted himself that the conversations happened. We can't rely on just one source for this LordEnma8 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. This game has substantial cultural notability, supported by plenty of sources. GraziePrego (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

•Keep

I am in favour of keeping this page because I don't quite see any reason to delete it. We have lots of sources over a sustained couple of years. I also believe it meets the threshold of notability enough to be sufficient. It is my belief the only reason this is coming up is due to recent controversy surrounding the developer. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) — Radiourgía Promithéas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: Page creator here. I wasn't sure of notability when I created the page. I'm STILL not 100% sure on notability because ultimately the game suffers from the same issues source-wise that it did when I made it, controversy coverage aside.

Those issues ultimately center upon a depth of coverage. There's a lot of coverage out there but what I had problems with was that the coverage was kind of shallow. An outlet would report on the game, but said coverage was more along the lines of short articles that basically said "this is going to come out" or articles that were essentially them summarizing YandereDev videos or another outlet's article on the topic. It was actually kind of difficult to find anything that could feel like someone commenting on the game itself or "reviewing" the test builds as in most cases this would be limited to a couple of sentences rather than anything in-depth. This was an especially big issue with the updates. Those kind of took on a "slow news day" feel, as they tended to fall into the "reprint of press release" hole.

Case in point is this article from Silicon Era, where it's just a summary of a YD video. It looks good, but when you really look at it you'll notice that it lacks any true commentary or reception on the update. Another example comes from Destructoid, where the article is little more than a basic announcement article. These are borderline trivial sources and unfortunately, most of the coverage out there is like this.

That's not to say that this topic is completely non-notable. I wouldn't have made it if I thought that was the case, but I will admit that I created it with the thought that future coverage would make up for the sub-par coverage at the time. That's on me. My thought here is that we need to look to see if there's any better sourcing, particularly ones that do more than just summarize and give brief mentions. We need more in-depth coverage and especially ones that give some sort of review of the game and/or the updates. My concern is basically this: if the game coverage stops here, then is the coverage enough to justify notability in ten years? I personally don't really think the coverage in the article is enough to do that but I think there's a good chance that the needed coverage is out there. (And hopefully hasn't been taken down by those outlets.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to make my basic point: I think the article needs some cleanup to really determine notability. I'll try to make some time for this task this week, but my job has really been keeping me off Wikipedia lately so if anyone else wants to help with this please do! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination), I have added an argument to delete the article, but I unable to edit the article because I have been partially blocked. This game is not a very popular at all. Should we have another semi popular memes like Kuruminha, Loituma Girl or Your Majesty, There's a Second Bus Coming? 2001:448A:11A2:1972:748F:59AA:F5ED:5592 (talk) 10:37 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and being a meme is not a disqualifier for inclusion despite people assuming that "ridiculous" topics should not be covered. It goes by whether reliable sources have seen the subject as important enough to write about, which they have, and that's really all there is to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep : I’m not sure why a game that’s produced collaborations with other indie games, has released multiple demos, and still receives notable news coverage from reliable sources is being proposed as “not notable” because the current article version needs work, because the creator’s notoriety attracts vandalism or drama, or even the bizarre notion that it USED TO have more coverage then it does now. Those are not valid reasons for removing an article on Wikipedia. Even the submission acknowledges the plethora of notable sources in the article. It makes sense a game that once had more active development but still hasn’t released would have coverage dry up - all video gaming coverage is like this especially for indie games like this. Sorry but this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith. Rebochan (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - controversial subject but appears to meet requirements on notability and referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Is Wikipedia not a website about providing a knowledge base for as many subjects as possible, in an explanatory method, as opposed to the Internet Archive's storage of actual content? Considering the notoriety of this game I really think it makes no sense to all of a sudden remove the article. Somehow I feel that people are proposing the deletion of this article because they want to retaliate against the developer for a recent controversy. It would seem to anybody impartial that the right solution is not to try and sweep the internet of any mention or "homage" to him in any form it takes, but to put, in all available spaces, some coverage of the controversies. I will note that this article has made mention of the controversies over the game itself, and bringing up the controversies over the developer on the same page seems like a solution that will not inflate a sense of the game's notoriety but instead give a space where a game that is pretty notorious gets a fairly summarized overview. If the issue of not having enough information or referential material is up for question, then the solution is again not to delete the article, but to provide the information and the references, which the internet provides a myriad of, as this is a game that has achieved quite a level of infamy; but, like similar games such as the PC game Harvester, needs summaries of the controversies for people to read and make up their own mind about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.71.123 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, no, almost none of that is based in our policies and guidelines. The problem with Yandere Simulator is that it had a burst of coverage around 2016. Then, until this most recent controversy about the developer, not about the game, no reliable sources were covering it further. This is where the WP:NPRODUCT argument about sustained coverage comes in. It was controversial, had a burst of coverage, then disappeared from secondary reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - This game, despite being unreleased, is still quite notable and has had much significant coverage. I think the development process itself is notable in this case. Bensci54 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep – Several of the sources demonstrate clear notability. Yes, the game is unreleased, but that does not make it unnotable. The reception section especially shows the real world development. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - in my personal judgement we are at that point where lolcows should have articles if they've done something profound enough that warrants one. This article isn't about Alex Mahan, sure, but it's about his passion project and it's a part of internet culture. It's so much bigger than just a game which in itself has countless countless countless sources by PC game journalists detailing it. But if none of that matters and we are looking at this solely from the "video game article perspective" alone then my question is rather: why do so many articles exist for trivial Nintendo 64 games then? Many of which don't "meet WP:GNG", but this on the other hand can pass almost four times over when compared to those. Second Skin (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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.