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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid9[edit]

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

Non-notable game that fails WP:GNG. The cited references seem to essentially be blogs rather than reliable sources with editors. There were some mentions on Siliconera and Hardcore Gamer, but they were not significant. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, the cited references do not appear to be notable/reliable. I checked on GameFAQs and Mobygames for better sources. GameFAQs has no reviews listed for the game, not even reader reviews, and Mobygames has no entry for the game at all. Lucid9 is a free-to-play fangame, so the lack of coverage is not too surprising, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first two review sites appear to have editors, but are minor at best. The third is probably not usable as an RS, but the article shades past just how scathing the review is. No significant RS coverage found elsewhere of 2014-2016+ development or 2016 release. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BLOGS. Unreliable sources have minor editors, rather, fans' reviews. This proves the article's section on its critical reception to be questionable, as this game isn't heard of in many gaming (JP visual novels for this case) websites. Not of any significance, also fails WP:NRV. Currently reviewing it whether it passes WP:NTEMP, however I don't see any sign it has gained recognizable notability in any given point in time. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Democratics: Why relist if you're immediately going to make a vote that might well be sufficient for an admin to close (and conversely, if you're going to make an assessment of the AFD -- which a relist is -- then !voting on it is questionable)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:19, 4 February 2018 (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.