Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katawa Shoujo

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katawa Shoujo

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

Independent "visual novel" video game. Lacks notability.

Most of the references are to things like the dev blog of the developers.

One Kotaku citation. Kotaku however is a very trashy tabloid style group blog.

gamesetwatch news piece. I am not too familliar with that site. May be another group blog.

In addition, I can find two reviews:

Screw Attack - Under the "blog" section and not a formal review section.

Escapist Magazine - This probably counts

I think that there are too few reliable sources discussing this to establish notability for this indie game. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Eeeeh, with the amount of stuff I have read about this game (which lead me to actually play it recently), I have a hard time coming to the conclusion it is not notable. I can't look at the links directly since I'm at work and I can't be bothered to bypass their firewall, but according to WP:VG/S there are plenty of coverage in reliable sources

Kotaku is reliable for posts after 2010.
GameSetWatch is also reliable
Screw Attack can be used for opinions and reviews per per WP:VG/S
Escapist is, as you said, definitely reliable
IndieGames review
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review
Technology Tell article (this one is not on WP:VG/S but looks good anyways).

So, plenty of significant coverage in reliable media sources. Subject comfortable passes WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawal recommended. The sites in the nom (save for perhaps Screw) are vetted at WP:VG/RS. That with Sal's sources put it past the GNG. Should something else be done with it (merge into something else) if the coverage is not substantial? That's a conversation for outside AfD. czar ♔ 22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and WP:BEFORE wasn't followed properly here. A simple Google search would've shown that a large number of sources exist, such as

http://indiegames.com/2012/01/four_leaf_studios_katawa_shouj.html
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/04/4chan_group_releases_eroge_dem.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/128886/This_week_in_video_game_criticism_From_proceduralism_to_Katawa_Shoujo.php
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/10/impressions-katawa-shoujo/
http://www.gamesradar.com/14-dating-sims-break-all-romantic-barriers/
http://www.theaureview.com/games/reviews/pc/katwa-shoujo-four-leaf-studios-2012
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/unexpected-sincerity-disabilities-girls-and-katawa-shoujo/
http://kotaku.com/5905626/that-game-about-dating-disabled-girls-is-excellent-and-you-should-play-it
http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133218/dont-get-upset-katawa-shoujo-sequel/
http://www.vg247.com/2012/01/05/katawa-shoujo-out-now/
http://www.avclub.com/article/march-5-2012-70201

To name a few. WP:GNG is easily passed here. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points. There is significant third party coverage from reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Green Runner 0 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salv's and Satellizer's source hunting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG was already met, but the sources listed here are enough to take the article to it GA. Developer notes are important for a certain aspect, but they do not conifer notability - so there is no N or GNG issue to be found. WP:BEFORE next time, please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (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.