Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Please Be Happy

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Be Happy[edit]

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

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

I was unable to find substantial reviews from reliable sources besides RPGFan. Wraithkal is a blog written by a single pseudonymous person. While Nook Gaming has an editorial policy and claims to have received game previews from SEGA and NIS America, they accept suggestions to review games from random developers and readers and thus should probably not count towards notability. Geek to Geek Media's authors have very light credentials such as B.J. Keeton writing for ScreenRant. Popzara does not list credentials for its authors. QuietCicada chirp 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like a bad game of course, but Wikipedia guidelines are purely based on notability and that is not up to par here. It requires more mentions in reliable gaming journalism or other sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be brought up to par.

Tech Gaming has a review if it's felt they're notable enough. I can't see if they've been discussed before. They are a MetaCritic site though which does show some level of notability at least. Outside of that, they've had significant interviews with industry staff, access to notable review copies and were linked on the PlayStation blog. This is probably going to be the most notable of them, but I am surprised to find there aren't many links to them from other websites that I can find even in this area where websites may not link to each other as they're competitors. There's also that Robert Allen seems to be the writer of 3884 of their articles, while Gonçalo Tordo has the second most at 60.

NookGaming I would generally consider a reliable source considering the medium/that they specialise in the area as it's on OpenCritic, linked on sources like Arstechnica and Engadget, early access to games (several previews and reviews dated prior to launch), have disclaimers for review copies of notable titles, a few more niche industry interviews, etc, but perhaps not one that would significantly count toward notability. I'd not hold their blurb about getting in contact regarding reviews against them though. Destructoid and TwinInfinite both provide addresses for people to contact them about review copies.

Geek to Geek Media is on OpenCritic (if only somewhat recently) which lends them some support as well as their owner writing for ScreenRant.com, but the review copies they're provided don't seem to be notable and their editorial policy is minimal. Pretty much all of the links to them are from podcast websites. I'd find it difficult to suggest them as notable or reliable.

Wraithkal and Popzara I can think can be dismissed for the reasons above.

Unfortunately, this is an issue with a lot of visual novel articles since very few are covered in Western media outside of niche sites. Japanese sources can sometimes be found but as a Western game it wouldn't be the case here.

Visual Novels fall under the Anime Project which does tend to be somewhat more lenient toward sources due to the niche nature of the medium, but notability will be difficult to prove for this title I believe. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (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.