Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You Like Horny Bunnies?

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[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)

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZyX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails per WP:NONENG, WP:VG/SE, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TRIVIAL. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is WP:NONENG relevant as a deletion reason? Charcoal feather (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling the Japanese name, エッチなバニーさんは嫌い, within archive.org netted at least two cases of apparent Japanese nontrivial print coverage – Game Criticism Vol. 39 (July 2001) p. 107 and BugBug 2001-05 p. 56.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favor redirect to ZyX over delete, but weak keep either way, per WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. I looked at LaukkuTheGreit's sources and both of them definitely look like WP:SIGCOV. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolute Games review & the 2 Japanese sources are just enough to meet GNG. -Mika1h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Japanese sources offer significant coverage. If not kept should be redirected to ZyX (brand) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the print sources Laukku found constitute sigcov, and should together with the other be enough to meet GNG.--Alexandra^IDV 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this now meets GNG after considering Laukku's sources. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:04, 13 May 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.