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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mystia (Video Game Series) (  | 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)

Fails WP:GNG. Current refs include official pages which are not independent, including the first two refs from G-Mode, which are also non-independent as the game series was distributed by G-Mode. Refs 3 and 4 are Wikipedia (non-reliable) and Twitter (also non-RS). A WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 failing WP:SIGCOV, the only longer coverage is 4 Gamer Net, though that is non-SIGCOV as it's a press release/routine announcement indicated by The following is the content of the manufacturer's announcement as it is as per the Google translated version, it is only a basic summary of the plot and characters but has little critical commentary. The Japanese version is no better, almost entirely sourced from G-Mode refs (non-independent). VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Less than 24 hours has passed since article creation. Premature Deletion Nomination. No obvious COI or Advertising. If needed, potential draftify- how is this procedure allowed per WP:NPP inappropriate? VickKiang (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ PerryPerryD: Per the WP:SPEEDYKEEP rationales, criteria 1, 4, 5, or 6 are inapplicable, do you think The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion, and that I am vandalising or disrupting the encyclopedia through this? Alternatively, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided- I'd be inclined if you can explain what "completely erroneous" mistake I made. VickKiang (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  In this case it would be a regular keep then. So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  So far your rationale is lack of notability, when the article hasnt had enough time for sources to be found- could you demonstrate sources rather than this presumption that somehow my WP:BEFORE search is inadequate? WP:NPP states that: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more- I tagged 50 minutes after, I'd be interested that you could explain how this deletion violates these guidelines. For instance, based on your rationale NPP should not CSD or PROD new articles until 24 hours after its creation? Of course, if you could demonstrate more sources I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, but so far I'm confused that without any more refs or source analysis you would vote keep because of how long I waited to AfD the article. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  I was not aware you performeed a before search for sources. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  I stated that WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions while discussing the G-Mode Archives... in my AfD nom. VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Im starting to question my own ability to read. I apologize for this. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify in order to allow time for improvement. May have the potential to be proven notable if more-in depth Japanese language sources can be found, but it is not ready for the mainspace in this state. silvia ( inquire within) 12:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify to allow for improvement from Japanese language sources. Archrogue ( talk) 19:16, 21 November 2022 (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.