Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphoria (visual novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.70.101.238 (talk) at 02:22, 16 April 2021 (Euphoria (visual novel)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Euphoria (visual novel) (edit | 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]
user:Hellknowz, this lacking of reviews is due to a irrelevant filter, that rejected the following list. I have asked for calling off the filter:
אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are not reliable sources (unless you can demonstrate author credentials, editorial practices or oversight, and history of credibility of the outlet, such as use by other reliable sources). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the deemed unreliable? Each of them is a lengthy, in-depth review.
Forgot to mention, the following review is on its way to the references:
What makes them reliable? Anyone can make a blog and start posting reviews. See WP:RS for what makes sources reliable and WP:VG/RS what in particular makes reliable video game sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see your point about blogs, I should check later weather these blogs have proven widespread influence. However, this review is from an established review site, that according to Alexa stands nicely in the front row of such sites. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:17, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 moved 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]

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]