Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway Blossoms

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The result was Withdrawn‎ . Evidence suggests it passes GNG due to the Okazu source, which, while self-published, is from a provable expert whose work has received a number of scholarly citations. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Blossoms[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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search only found a single review from Hardcore Gamer and a paragraph from PCGamesN. Everything else is rather trivial, or from somewhere that isn't vetted as reliable. The reception is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make it SEEM notable, but the sources don't support that. (See WP:SIGCOV) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two Hardcore Gamer, first TheGamer, and PCGamesN sources establish GNG. You may want to call most of the other sources "trivial", but I would say they are simply supplemental sources that help cite sentences in the article that if left unsourced would be silly and unhelpful.

The only source that isn't currently vetted as reliable as per WP:VG/RS is the Inverse one but that source is listed as having inconclusive discussions on that issue. The two discussions lead me to believe that it should be treated as at least situationally reliable. I would lean to voting reliable if a new discussion on it was added to WP:VG/RS.

This article existed for about 15 hours before being tagged with an AFD and I'm not necessarily anti-deletion but I don't see how these taggings help. The subject is not egregiously or blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia, and it's honestly akin to a stub article right now. Not letting it have a moment to breathe, as I planned to look for some more sources in addition to the ones I already found, is not entirely constructive in my opinion. Soulbust (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer is a situational source in WP:VG/S - it's not applicable to establish notability due to its notoriety as a content mill.

I should also point you directly to WP:GNG, where it says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." You can't use two Hardcore Gamer sources to count towards the requirement of multiple sources.

Regardless of whether the article is under construction, you made it in main space rather than as a draft, which seems to indicate that you believe it can stand on its own in its current state. Still, my own search didn't find anything so I find it fairly unlikely they exist at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that Highway Blossoms gets a very brief shout-out in the Inverse article; which gives slightly more opinions about the studio's later games though I'm not sure I'd call any one game in the article significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer is situationally reliable yes. But its usage in this article is still suitable as both references sourced by TheGamer are after August 2020 - as per WP:VG/RS, "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable."

If you want to count the Hardcore Gamer as one source, that's fine fine. It still establishes GNG, along with the PCGamesN source.

Probably all articles can be called "under construction", so that's not really my main point. But this article was just made, and especially in that case, I would ask does deletion of this article help, at least this soon? Soulbust (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG: for significant coverage, the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Highway Blossoms has about the same amount of coverage in Inverse that it does in PCGamesN. Its coverage in the former is direct and in detail, satisfying GNG, and furthermore offers sourcing on a pretty noteworthy pieces of information, namely why the writer sought to work on the game, and that the game's reception inspired him to found the studio. I would say this constitutes as helping establish notability. Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally pretty lenient on games that will probably be notable at some point. This is not such a case, as Highway Blossoms is a 2016 game - it's unlikely to garner any further RS mentions, especially with the studio moving on to later and greater things. So, WP:ITSHARMLESS is not really an argument here.

The portion of The Inverse article that is about the game is as follows: Josh Kaplan’s first game, Highway Blossoms, sees a young girl named Amber gradually fall in love with her friend Marina in the American Southwest. Only a few years out of high school himself at the time, Kaplan wanted to see more yuri visual novels (a subgenre that focuses on female romantic relationships) in the space. So he co-wrote his own. This is not significant. This is hardly even trivial. And it offers no opinion from the article's writer. There is no way this counts towards notability. Even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable, it's also a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inverse source also includes "In 2016, there weren't a whole lot of yuri visual novels available in English, especially on Steam, and the game ended up being unexpectedly successful,” Kaplan tells Inverse. “It found an audience of primarily LGBT readers who appreciated what they felt was a more realistic approach to same-sex relationships." Inspired by the response to Highway Blossoms, Kaplan founded Studio Élan.

This and the portion you quoted in your reply is short coverage sure, but not trivial. WP:TRIVIAL also states "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." That last sentence is important, because the sources provided are valid. The PCGamesN and Hardcore Gamer sourcing establishes GNG. For TheGamer, WP:VG/RS is pretty clear that the source is considered reliable post-August 2020, so there is no "even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable" that applies here, as you stated. The only thing WP:VG/RS advises against is using it to demonstrate notability. But since, the source is not a trivial mention, it adds as suitable reliable sourcing that helps this article follow the spirit and the letter of the guideline, which is simply to make sure there is enough content to write about from a neutral POV. Soulbust (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Starship 24 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) — Starship 24 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Starship SN20 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep: Draftify/Userfy: Per the discussion below, I concede that the sources necessary to prove notability for an article on the game simply aren't there yet. However, I still feel that the article should be kept in draftspace or userspace, if for no other reason than I'd like to try to improve it myself.
In addition to the Hardcore Gamer and PCGamesN posts, which seem to have consensus as counting towards GNG, I've also found sources from Noisy Pixel ([1]), Gayming Magazine ([[2]), Anime News Network ([3]), and Erica Friedman/Yuricon ([4], [5]), the latter two of which are described in WP:A&M/RS as situationally reliable for contexts such as these.
If this article is still deleted anyway, I'd like to suggest that it be retained as a draft, either in draftspace or in userspace. Even if this topic never becomes independently notable, I believe there's a pretty good chance that Studio Elan as a whole may be at some point worthy of a standalone article (if they aren't already), in which case the contents and sources of this article would likely be worth keeping around to merge into that article. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear the Anime News Network post is not WP:SIGCOV. The Yuricon review is unreliable per WP:BLOG, which is a Wikipedia policy that can't be overridden by someone's opinion from 2009. I don't believe Erica Friedman's considered a subject matter expert whose work has appeared in WP:RS - the only evidence shown is that she made a listicle once for About.com, which is a ridiculously low bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Studio Elan is also not even close to being independently notable yet. In Google results they're neck and neck with a random beauty studio somewhere. Heart of the Woods is the only encyclopedic output thus far, since it got reviews from Siliconera, Digitally Downloaded and Rock Paper Shotgun, all reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting. I took a look at the RS/N discussion, and concede that the grounds upon which Erica Friedman was deemed a reliable individual for the subject are pretty flimsy, apart from being that she's in charge of a publishing house, which I guess doesn't mean anything- but she has apparently written a book (published by a different publishing house) and been described by an expert in this press release than ANN reposted here. She did also write an article for WP:ANIFEM in 2019, and is cited in this one as a "Yuri scholar," so, all that considered, that might make her a reliable individual. This is a discussion out of scope of this AfD, so I'll probably be taking it to a different talk page.
I do concede, however, that even if she would be good enough to cite as an opinion on the game if it were proved notable, it's not good enough by itself- so, as such, I think I'm going to change my vote to drafity. (I still think the article should be draftified, if for no other reason than I'd like to at least have the opportunity to workshop it myself.) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yuri scholar" is obviously tongue-in-cheek, I don't see evidence of her being a literal scholar. She seems like your standard blogger to me, rather than an academic source, nor is the analysis the slightest bit academic. Feel free to attempt to find more sources, but you can't make them pop out of thin air where there are none. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if we don't find any sources, or no other editors agree with me (like I said, I'm looking into it and intend to open a discussion about it elsewhere), then I'll happily admit that I was wrong and she's not reliable. I'm not trying to start a fight about it or fabricate anything. But like I said, I'm pretty sure this is out of scope for this AfD. I'll likely be opening a talk about this here and/or at RS/N, and if/when I do, I'm sure your comments will be welcomed. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: Thank you for contributions and help with this article. I had noticed the Gayming, Noisy Pixel, and Anime News Network sources before but refrained from including/using them because the former two aren't listed at VG:RS at all, though we should probably fix that and start a discussion on whether they should be listed as reliable or not. The latter as well as Okazu didn't really process for me when making the article either but if they are deemed suitable for this article then that's great.

I've started a very rough draft for Studio Élan, which I think can stand on its own and the merging of this into that (or perhaps vice versa akin to how Team Cherry is currently a redirect into Hollow Knight) would be preferable than the straight up deletion of this article, though I still maintain Keeping this would be the most preferable option. Soulbust (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be cognizant of the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources because you seem to be assuming interviews count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming that. Again the draft page for the studio is currently very rough. Soulbust (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One discussion we probably could be having is if the sources that WP:ANIME considers reliable and the sources that WP:VG considers reliable should be coordinated in some fashion. While there is a clear distinction between more anime focused sources and more video game focused sources, there is some natural overlap between them as anime and video games are interests with many of the same demographics (you'll find anime reviews on IGN just as soon as you'll find game reviews on ANN). There is also overlap in subject matter as well, as there are anime-based/inspired video games, video game inspired anime, and visual novels, which is something that apparently was considered with the visual novels taskforce jointly formed between the two at one point- although that appears to be inactive.
I would say, in general, that the two different lists of sources for both are pretty comparable, although obviously the selection of video game-focused sources is much larger. I don't know. Again, out of scope of this AfD, but likely still worth thinking about later. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...she has published in an academic journal, FYI. (Granted, a section under editorial but not peer review...but with 10 citations!) Sandtalon (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have learned that yuri scholar is actually a real thing. Touche.

Still, I have had sources written by Derek Yu, arguably a massively more prominent figure in the gaming scene, shot down simply because they were in an unreliable source, so I am dubious that simply because she had written a scholarly work in the past, anything self-published by her is reliable. If so that would be a big deviation from how I assumed reliable sources work. If that is the case, I'd err on the side of the game being notable, but I am not sure others would agree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did open that discussion on the anime project sources list talk page. The other two editors who commented thus far seem to agree that she's usable for this type of context, although even still, that doesn't necessarily mean she counts towards meeting GNG. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Video games, and Visual arts. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs input by more, er, yuri scholars about whether the sourcing is sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm no scholar of this particular "thing", but the mentions seem trivial. We'd need more native-language sourcing to see how it's talked about there. I have no desire to fall down this rabbit hole myself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is native language; this visual novel was produced in English (and to my knowledge has no Japanese translation, though there might be sources in the two other languages it does have translations in). It seems unlikely that there are more sources than this, so I think I still support a draftify or maybe a redirect to Heart of the Woods. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 16:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to google it, especially at work. Still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you say the mentions seem trivial, to maybe help out with that in future editing of this article.

As mentioned above, I don't think the TheGamer, Hardcore Gamer, PCGamesN, or Inverse sources are trivial mentions. The Okazu and Gayming Magazine sources also fall under non-trivial coverage. Sure, there are some sources that are just a sentence or two, but those are okay for inclusion since they are supplemental sources that are useful for verification. But at any rate, some clarification on why you say the mentions seem trivial would perhaps help me edit this. Thanks, Soulbust (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soulbust: There's only a single instance of WP:SIGCOV and that is Hardcore Gamer's review. PCGamesN has a grand total of 4 sentences, 2 of which are opinion. Inverse has, like, a single sentence mention, and TheGamer is situational and can't be used for notability. As for Okazu and Gayming Magazine, there's no evidence they're WP:RS. WP:GNG requires multiple significant sources.

@Oaktree b: The game has slight optional adult content, but it's more romance fiction than an erotic game, so I don't think you have to be concerned about going down a "rabbit hole". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said my piece about Okazu and there has since been a more recent discussion about that, so I won't repeat myself on that front. However, Gayming Magazine does appear to have some kind of editorial control, given that they list an Editor-in-Chief for the publication on their parent company's "About" page, and apparently the company's publications have been covered or referenced by several known RSes. Certainly not conclusive evidence of anything, but not nothing either. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 06:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming Gayming is definitively notable without a shadow of a doubt, it's not SIGCOV either, just an announcement posting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented on the Inverse and TheGamer sourcing above. As for PCGamesN, in your nomination of this article for deletion, you excluded the source from the "Everything else" that is "rather trivial". However, if you changed your mind on that source, the WP:SIGCOV guideline states: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

So, I don't know why there is a need to zero in on "a grand total of 4 sentences, 2 of which are opinion". Those 4 sentences address the topic directly. I would argue in detail (i.e. mentioning game aspects like its soundtrack and visuals, is detail to me). I will say that's perhaps subjective, and maybe you think that isn't enough detail. But I would say that because the guideline doesn't mention any explicit length requirement (and only that we wouldn't have to use a source in a way where original research is need to extract content), that this is valid as detail. And it simply isn't trivial, in my opinion, since it discusses concrete things about aspects of the game.

More importantly: In the article, the PCGamesN source is not used in an original research manner; it is used for citing an opinion from an outlet listed as reliable, and it's used aptly in the reception section.

Regardless of all that, this article still has the Hardcore Gamer sourcing, as well as the Okazu and Gayming source that look reliable to me. Like mentioned elsewhere in this AfD, discussion on Okazu has been linked. And we would just need some further formal discussion for the latter at VG:RS perhaps, but yeah I'd agree with silvia's points on Gayming. And we also have a lot of supplemental sourcing present here to help flesh the article out. TheGamer source in particular being a non-trivial RS coverage is really helpful in regards to this. There is plainly enough here to write about in a way that presents the information in a neutral, reliably sourced manner and doesn't go off on original research tangents. Soulbust (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hardcore Gamer and Rock Paper Shotgun sources seem to be enough, and there are more, less helpful sources. Seems very notable to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I am not sure which source you mean - if you are referring to "The 10 Best Visual Novels on PC", Highway Blossoms is not actually listed as one of those 10 VNs. It is only mentioned in the "What else should I be playing if I like this?" section in a single sentence, "If you want to stick with acclaimed romantic dramas, you'll find the right mix of sweetness and sentiment in If My Heart Had Wings or Highway Blossoms." This is trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 20 April 2023 (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.