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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spirit of Eagle (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 1 October 2023 (Added NOTAVOTE template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Yandere Simulator

AfDs for this article:

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Consistently covered in gaming publications for several years now. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Popularity on reddit and youtube are not part of WP:N or any SNG. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yandere_Simulator_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1178005920"