Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions[edit]

Canderous Ordo[edit]

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

Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what very little is actually cited to reliable secondary sources is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr[edit]

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

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with ~~"there are no reliable sources"~~ "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.

I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight: per above. C F A 💬 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messhof[edit]

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

Fails notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works (Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2[1] and Ghost Bike[2][3]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Czar. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro forma note that Czar is the article creator. What I get out of the rockpapershotgun article is that Messhof created freeware games prior to Nidhogg with a similar aesthetic. IgelRM (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Floyd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Accvording to Pepapapopo (talk · contribs): only one actual article about this guy is sourced, otherwise filled with unsourced information and i doubt this meets the notability requirements. An article was previously deleted at AfD, but I cannot determine if it was about the same person as this one, an American video game voice actor. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Video games, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I can find [4], which does nothing for notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find where any of the biographical information comes from. The listing of roles can be from credits on the games and films, but there needs to be some independent sources. It is a shame that voice actors aren't covered well in sources, but that doesn't change the fact that we have no independent sources for the content of this article. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage of his roles as a voice actor. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The info on the voice acting seems shaky without outside confirmation. Maybe with some good references, this article could be brought back up to snuff! Waqar💬 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat[edit]

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly Line[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:NCORP. A search is tough due to the generic name, but what I could find was only trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, it fails WP:NCORP, and I too could not find any sources, all I saw were LinkedIn, fandom, and this IGN list of games that only includes three of them. The fandom page has literally just copied everything from this page. It even copied the stub mark. I searched archive.org too, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and all of the above. Non-notable video game company, despite its age. TH1980 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree as per nom and MKsLifeInANutshell, nothing I can find meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alientrap[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, a search for sources only turned up primary ones in the form of interviews, and mentions in unreliable outlets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Describes their games, which have their own articles, but not the developer itself. IgelRM (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article looks very trivial and all of the sources are unreliable. NatwonTSG^TALK 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP and I cannot identify a suitable redirect as none of their games appears to be better known than any other. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbeard Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP heavily with a lack of significant coverage about the company itself. They only seem known for the fine they paid to the FTC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mobilegamer.biz, yayomg.com IgelRM (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources provided in the comment above, the first is based entirely on an interview, fails ORGIND, and the second is a review of one game, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with gyro features[edit]

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

Seems like stealth WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, as there are too many games with gyro features to reliably list without it being undue effort for editors, including games that use gyro controls for completely trivial things, like emoting in Bloodborne. It is also written like an essay. This is the kind of over-listification we don't need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.

I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.

I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.

I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.

If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.

If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.

I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.

I think you should take a real close read of WP:OR and WP:RS. BrigadierG (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list would be massive it was correctly populated with all the Wii and Nintendo Switch games out there. There's mobile games, VG games, etc etc. The scope won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone reading the actual page or any of my comments? The Wii does not have a gyro sensor. A very limited list of games of that platform would be included on the list, more precisely 54 of 2560 games. This is written in the "Platform" section. The Wii Remote Wiki page also states the same information. In fact, the list that is already there, already includes most of the games that would qualify to be on that list, and that is certainly not every Wii game or every Switch game.
I would understand if the concern was that the explanation given on the article leaves room for this kind of misconception, so a solution would be to simply refine what's already there. But so far, the deletion requests are coming from people who don't know what Gyro is, this is a baseless concern, that is already addressed in the page itself, that only goes to show how people could benefit from the information contained on this article. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the term gyroscope peppered through the Wii Remote article, so I'm not sure I'm following how that's not a "gyro feature", but regardless, that was a relatively small part of my overall argument that would still stand even if the Wii is somehow not relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick correction: Only Wii Remote Plus or Wii Remote's Motion Plus accessory has gyroscope capabiltiies. Actual usage of gyorscope in Wii titles are rare (obviously) and it's often a requirement for these titles, but on top of my head: Wii Sports Resort and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

if you ask me: this entire "list" should become Gyroscopic control (gaming) while the *real* List of video games with gyro features should only be a list. and I have gave that feedback directly to Ivan in a separate social media site/group thingin. AL2009man (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wii Remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, uses only an accelerometer and an IR sensor. Gyro was indeed introduced later with the Motion Plus accessory, so the list of games that support this accessory is very limited. So no, not every Wii game uses gyro, Motion Controls (accelerometer) and Motion Controls (Gyroscopes) are 2 different things that lead to different results.

Regardless, as I said above. I understand the concern with the scope of this article, I feel the biggest problem is in the premise being too broad. If this article was called "List of console games with gyro aim", would that help? It would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library, low effort mobile games and VR games, thus clearing up any confusion with the title and premise. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still multiple issues to address:
This article uses a lot of unreliable/unusable sources. For example, any wikis would fail WP:USERG. That all needs to go.

Every entry needs to be reliably sourced. See WP:VG/S for the sorts of sources that are usable or unusable. Are we really going to be able to do this with this subject?

Lists should meet WP:NLIST. That requires better sourcing too. Are there WP:VG/S approved sources that do this?

I have serious concerns about all of these points, especially since, by your own admission, gyro is such a poorly documented feature. That is absolutelynot a way one would want to describe the subject of their Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Usually everything about gyro is documented by the community, because the stigma around this feature is enough for it to not be listed anywhere in any official capacity. I can try to address these issues, but if I can't, I guess I will have to search for another place to do this. Thank you so much for your time and for being the only person to actually reply to anything I asked on this site. I sent multiple messages throughout the process to my "mentor" to make sure if I wasn't falling on these pitfalls, and no one answered. Anyway, Thank you! Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move – after figuring out "gyros" isn't referring to Greek cuisine (somehow I totally misread the title at first), I think the prose section could be a good starting point for an article about gyroscopes in video games (after some major cleanup), but the list section is too indiscriminate. For the few games where gyroscopic features are particularly relevant, they could be discussed in prose. So I would support moving to draftspace, but only if the article is overhauled with a different focus and the article title is changed to the general topic instead of a list. AL2009man's suggestion of Gyroscopic control (gaming) would work, as would something like Gyroscopes in video games. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Active[edit]

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

Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but ~~the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and~~ I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a permastub. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Computing. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my ignorance. Having fiddled with Amiga Forever for months now and uploaded dozens of Amiga-related items to the Internet Archive, I should have known better. I would have come across as less hyperbolic with language like, "The Amiga was long past its prime by 1999," and I have heard of AmigaOS 4 (it amazes me to know how such a formerly popular OS as the Amiga would receive continued support long after its original manufacturer had folded, and that was 30 years ago). Free Media Kid$ 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails to meet WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//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.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [5], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WPVG custom search engine yields additional coverage from Hardcore Gamer and 4gamer. Critical commentary is extremely weak, however, and the Way Too Many Games review should be removed. Time Extension and this article provide only two paragraphs combined of commentary (I have seen games with similarly lacking reception get articles though). Despite this, it looks to me that reliable sources have adequately covered pre-release and development information. This article is an odd case where its notability hinges heavily on coverage of its development but I think that still counts. LBWP (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do also have two industry professionals (from Supercell and SFB Games) praising the game here. It's indeed not much on the reception, but that's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable and any others who have found reliable sources mentioned above. MK at your service. 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is under a DYK so I'm not sure if that needs to be put on hold. JuniperChill (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since people are here voting keep based on news announcements, just want to point out that WP:SBST states that routine news reports are not significant coverage, even a large amount of them. For example that Hardcore Gamer announcement, the writer doesn't provide his own commentary: "The team behind the game stated", "According to Rik, one of the leads". It's a glorified press release. --Mika1h (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)[edit]

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This two are quite good, covering the company's workplace practices. Routine coverage from major RS is also fairly regular but not trivial. I think the recent news surrounding Prison Architect 2 ([6]) may also count as SIGCOV for the studio. OceanHok (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The developer appears notable enough to be mentione somewhere as an WP:ATD. Also related to Pneuma insidermedia.com IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough coverage about the company itself to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The two articles presented above by OceanHok are particularly in-depth. The company has also received a lot of less-in-depth coverage about their games. While notability is not inherited, these articles do focus more on the company than you might expect because of the specific agreement they were trying to reach about the game (ex: [7][8][9]). Coverage definitely adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vii[edit]

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

Besides a single Engadget review (the "Wii vs. Vii First Shot" source), the sources appear to either be unreliable (such as GoNintendo) or trivial mentions such as minor announcements/mentions, making it fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no substantial coverage. The Banner talk 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wii with further discussion of knockoff Wii consoles based on these sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VII as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Charcoal feather (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's redirected it will have to be moved to Vii (console) beforehand. A new redirect at this name can be created if necessary (though it's not actually necessary) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to Vii (console) is a good idea. Dr. Precursor (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Article page moves can occur if an article is Kept but can not be carried out by a closer because it's an editing decision. If you want an article moved, first vote to Keep it then a move can be discussed. But right now, we also have arguments to Delete and Redirect so no consensus exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't have the sources to meet the WP:GNG. The Wii is already an WP:FA without a mention of the Vii, so I believe that shows that's it's of little importance of the Wii and not worth a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Sergecross73: While I believe the Wii article may be in good shape, that doesn't necessarily mean it is complete. There's multiple quality sources discussing the creation of knockoffs of the Wii, so I don't think it'd be a problem to mention this fact and the existence of the Vii in particular. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. FA's are not perfect. But I think it's telling that an article that has existed for almost 2 decades, and has had enough experienced editor's interest to get it to FA status, never felt it was important enough to include this... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wii clones. Partially because of the sources by Cukie Gherkin, there are enough sources for Wii knockoffs as a whole to be notable, if not the Vii alone. Dr. Precursor (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't redirect to an article that doesn't exist, it'll just be deleted. Also don't delete comments and write new things. WP:STRIKE the old comments if they dont apply anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If a Wii clone section with a mention to Vii is ever written at Wii, this can be recreated and redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good suggestion. I may work on something related to Wii clones. Dr. Precursor (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Redirects[edit]

Nuzlocke → Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nuzlocke Challenge → Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [17]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you didn't actually add the RfD to the delsort list. It has to be added manually over there, like this. In this case, I replaced a closed RfD with this one. Nickps (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects weren't tagged either. Nickps (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to do that. --Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information about it should be re-added to the article, it was wrongly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETURNTORED - Nuzlocke could easily be turned into an article, there's decent number of sources about it, eg: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and it's mentioned in 14 different Wikipedia articles. (My second preference would be keep/reinstate into Pokemon) BugGhost 🪲👻 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]