Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jisei (video game series)

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. If an editor wishes this article to be draftified to focus in on the first game, and not the series, please contact me on my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Jisei (video game series)

[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!

Jisei (video game series) (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)

The games are not individually notable, so they cannot be notable as a group either. The original title, Jisei, got the most critical mentions, but they are mostly in unreliable sources besides GameZebo and a small paragraph mention in TouchArcade. If the page is kept, I suggest it only cover the first game, but, despite its recent Switch port, I could not even come up with enough sources to salvage that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but limit to game one: The only reviews I could find were the first game, but they do exist beyond what's in the article. For instance, there's also [this review in Gaming Age] by the contributing editor, which seems in depth enough to pass WP:NVG; Discussion in WP:GAMESOURCES seems to have come to the conclusion that this outlet is usable for reviews if the writer is legit. Possibly also [this Cubed3 review] but maybe less so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Gaming Age appears to lack an editorial policy. I think arguably it might be moved to unreliable source, I am rather unsure why it would even be considered situational at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not personally familiar with the publication but according to this discussion at the project it does seem legit with the caveat about checking the writer. Inclined to defer to their judgment on it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  That was one person's opinion, but I have to point out that this statement: "If the author has gone on to become a writer for an RS then I think I'd be open to accepting his work even if it came before he was associated with the RS." has been directly shot down by current members of WP:VG. As far as I know, the general consensus is that a journalist's work is inadmissible unless it has been published in a RS, not irregardless of where it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, just the usual primary sources, unreliable sources, (possibly) reliable but trivial coverage, etc. Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Woodroar. Tried to search for in-depth coverage, but failed. Looking at the sources, I would definitely doubt that the entire series is notable. Sparkl^talk 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. I think it could be notable, but the series as a whole isn't. I can find no reliable source mentioning it as a series, but I think the first game could be notable. So I'd push for a rewrite of the article covering only the first game. The article itself has had the citation needed template for the entire Gameplay section since JUNE 2013, a clear result of the lack of reliable sources, as well as a huge reliance on primary sources. But I think it could stay.

DecafPotato (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV or Draftify to Jisei: The First Case. The series as a whole fails GNG, and its borderline on the first game. The article needs to be entirely restructured/refocused on the first game. It's not ready for main-space as is, so draftifying would be the best choice. It should be required to go through WP:AFC review. 4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2022 (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.