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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Flemeth[edit]

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

I tried to do BEFORE, but most of them are just passing mentionsthat talk about Flemeth or trivial content. The onlt SIGCOV we got is the scholar "Powerful elderly characters in video games: Flemeth of Dragon Age", but I don't think it is enough to carry the article's notability. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the nomination is discounting secondary source which do not have Flemeth as their main topic, which is not in keeping with WP:SIGCOV. We do have enough reception and analysis by secondary sources to write a full article right now, which is exactly what the notability guideline requires. Granted, some of the coverage works equally well for Flemeth the character as it does for the Dragon Age game, but that then means we would have a question of WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. And I personally think that this topic is better covered here, as it would be too detailed for the main Dragon Age article. The mentioned article "Powerful elderly characters in video games: Flemeth of Dragon Age", together with the chapter in Ctrl-Alt-Play: Essays on Control in Video Gaming and Stang's "The Broodmother as Monstrous-Feminine—Abject Maternity in Video Games" alone provide enough coverage, I do not find this coverage trivial. Much more so taking the other sources both present in the article and in the searches into account. Daranios (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make the notability question even clearer, this academic publication, Kansanperinne 2.0, has a 3-page chapter dedicated to Flemeth (p. 346-349), with much the same discussion as the other academic sources (complex character, unusual traits for an elder female character), plus more on p. 340, 357, 359. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find right there. I feel like I'm convinced now that the article could be notable; however I wouldn't withdraw to avoid a super vote outcome. Many thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no !votes for deletion, redirection, or merging, there would be no supervote concerns. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis provided by Daranios. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Epic Games Store giveaways[edit]

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

Fails NOTCATALOG. A similar page listing these was deleted in 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games. Info about the free giveaways can be kept at the main EGS page Masem (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the previous nom, same reason; WP:NOTPROMO. This would be like us listing Black Friday deals from KMart for every year; it's pointless to the regular reader and none of the deals apply any longer, and this shouldn't even be listed in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment last time - it's about as literal of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE violation as it can get. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there needs to be a stated reason why listing giveaways is encyclopedic. The data is interesting but more within the purview of a different Wiki project or site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listing past giveaways is like collecting dust bunnies. It's not relevant and just clutters the page. Regular readers wouldn't even find outdated deals helpful, and it seems like a better fit for a different website. Waqar💬 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of giveaways doesn't seem fit for Wikipedia as it doesn't look encyclopedic JuniperChill (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTADVERT. MK at your service. 03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear, I meant info about the free giveaway program can be merged if that info is not already present at EGS, since I know some of the same info is already there; and not about merging the list of free games). — Masem (t) 04:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Panda[edit]

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

Well this is...certainly a very questionable article with no clear redirect target. A before doesn't inspire any confidence either.

Unless I'm missing something this is pretty much open and shut not notable? Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 1 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) 23:18, 1 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]

Kiboy (gamer)[edit]

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

Obviously fails GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has sources, and searching for this guy brings up a few more (e.g. 1 2 3). The names pops up in dozens of articles, most of them in Indonesian, and while I don't think that those are all pristine sources, "Obviously fails GNG" would only be a valid complaint if there were no sources at all.

Excuse you? the three sources you've given are not reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources would not be sufficient. I'd recommend looking more into things listed as reliable at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sites list few to no Indonesian sources, so they aren't very helpful here. Also, reliability doesn't require a source to be listed there. Cortador (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest otherwise. But this is a WP:BLP. It requires sourcing stronger than a few obscure video game blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribun Network - which is currently cited twice in the article - is a mainstream Indonesian news outlet. What gave you the impression that is is a "video game blog"? Cortador (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the three sources you (or whoever it was who failed to sign their own comment) presented in the actual discussion. The ones with names like "Oneesports", "VCgamers", and "Duniagames". Those are the ones that sound like low-level gaming blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you dismiss them based on the name alone then? Cortador (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I evaluated them. You have an awful lot of (bad faith?) questions for someone who never even bothered to advance an argument for their reliability in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no base assumption of unreliability for sources. Also, do me a favour and don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when you are the one dismissing sources based on what their name sounds like. Cortador (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no base assumption of reliability either. It's your prerogative if you don't wish to explain yourself, but it's certainly a bizarre choice in a discussion where you're trying to persuade others of your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my stance above. Cortador (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this as if that was self-evident. Can you read Indonesian? If so, what makes see these sources - or any others you should have found during WP:BEFORE - unreliable? Just declaring that anything on this guy is unreliable isn't sufficient Cortador (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not promotion, and a name popping up in a few places is insufficient for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not able to see or find the sourcing to support the WP:GNG of a WP:BLP. Everything thing seems to be brief mentions and obscure/unreliable gaming blogs. Nothing to build a case of notability around. The article is largely devoid of content anyways, so no big loss. Sergecross73 msg me 11:15, 2 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 [1], 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]

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]

List of Android games[edit]

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

Ryan York has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There are half a million Android games. This page is clearly not feasible in this format and is misleading, with so many missing games. It is impossible to list every Android game here. Why some android games are listed, but nòt the other ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan York (talk • contribs) and transcluded to the log at 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This meets WP: NLIST. Here are seven sources from reputable journalists that demonstrate the subject's notability: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. They discuss subjects ranging from optimizing gaming performance on Android phones to the Google Play Pass to Android games that can be played offline. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading. Additionally,

Category:Android (operating system) games list already exist and provides a structured way to list such games, which is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these. Specialized databases and resources like the Google Play Store offer extensive, up-to-date lists, making this Wikipedia page redundant and difficult to maintain. Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is. Ryan York (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of that's true. This doesn't make sense.

Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading.

How is it misleading? There is a statement at the top of this list that states: This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. That makes it very clear that this list doesn't need to be hundreds of thousands of games long. WP: NLIST, which I'm hoping you've read by now, also says that "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles". That would also make the article much easier to manage.

Category:Android (operating system) games list [sic] already exist [sic] and ... is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these.

That's not a valid reason for deletion: "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Please read WP: NOTDUP.

Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is.

Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This is the wrong venue for these concerns, no matter how many times you insist that this list is "flawed". You need to write this on the Talk page of the article, per WP: ATD-E. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep saying this. It isn't accurate. Having an implausible scope is not, in fact, a cleanup issue. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I do, because this is a cleanup issue. I don't think the scope is implausible, and even if it is, this just means that the list should be split into sublists that are manageable (e.g. by genre or name). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good sign when you keep saying the same thing over and over again and deletion stances continue rolling in concurrently. I'd recommend some introspection on what's really going on here, and caution you not to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators look for arguments based on Wikipedia policies when closing discussions, like WP: NLIST. I don't think the current arguments for deletion will hold much weight. At best, most of the reasons here are really just reasons to split the list. I see this going one of two ways: either the list's size can be managed by limiting it to notable games, at which point the article should be kept, or it's too big, at which point we should just split the list by genre or name. Split lists like Lists of murders (edit: and policies like WP: SALAT) show that splitting massive, difficult-to-complete lists is possible, contrary to what has been asserted in this discussion. Also, there is a difference between civil disagreement and bludgeoning -- accusing good-faith editors of violating WP: BLUDGEON isn't funny. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see it going one way - deletion - because a scope of half a million titles (and rapidly increasing every day) isn't manageable. Perhaps with more editing experience you'll understand what people are trying to tell you. Perhaps you have to "live it" to understand. And bludgeoning can happen even in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also read any of the seven sources that I listed to show that this meets WP: NLIST? HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The manageability of the list, the proposal to limit entries to notable games or create sublists is not a sufficient solution. Even with these measures, the list remains unwieldy and prone to becoming outdated quickly. The effort required to continuously vet and update the list for notability and accuracy is disproportionate to the benefits it provides.

The argument that deletion discussions are not the venue for cleanup concerns overlooks the fundamental issue of the list’s feasibility. Cleanup is indeed necessary, but the extent of the problems with this list—scope, manageability, and sourcing—indicates that deletion is a more appropriate response. The energy and resources required for ongoing maintenance are better directed towards creating high-quality.

Redundancy with existing categories, unmanageable nature, lack of reliable sourcing, and the disproportionate effort required for maintenance. Deletion will streamline Wikipedia’s content and ensure resources are used more effectively to maintain the quality and reliability of the information provided. The scope is simply too broad. There is a reason why there is no "List of Windows games" or "List of Android apps" on this website. Let me give you another example: I personally log into Wikipedia every day to update lists of Microsoft games and triple-A and double-A console games. Even that can be quite impossible. Ryan York (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't want to understand, or you are trolling. Listing 100,000–500,000 games on this format is not possible. If you want to create multiple Wikipedia articles listing Android games by their year or maybe genre, you are welcome to do so. As of now, this list does not even include 1% of Android games, and it is misleading. It is so broad and not up to date that it is simply impossible to list even 1% of the games here. I recommend you check out the List of Europeans discussion. Ryan York (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the attitude and answer my question. This is not an invitation to grandstand about your edits on articles that have nothing to do with this AfD, to show that you know how many Android games exist, or to call someone a troll just because they disagree with you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know there are hundreds of thousands of Android games out there. It's impossible to list them all here, so we'll have to delete this article. Thanks and goodbye Ryan York (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this list should be deleted. Attempting to compile a comprehensive list of millions of Android games on Wikipedia is impractical and misleading. Maintaining such a list on Wikipedia would be burdensome and redundant, given the constantly expanding nature of mobile gaming. Deleting this page would uphold Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and relevance, focusing on curated content rather than exhaustive lists. Wariorio10 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for deleting an article. Please read WP: NLIST and WP: NOTDUP. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed it already. This list should be deleted due to its massive scope. It's not feasible to list half a million games in this format with sources. The largest list in Wikipedia's history, 'List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements,' pales in comparison to the claims made by this list. Wariorio10 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST. This is equally as over-extensive as the now-deleted List of Europeans. There are too many potential entries for it to possibly make sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP: OLIST is not a guideline for deleting articles (it's an essay), and a list of 240 games does not come close to being "over-extensive". HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 240 present is not the issue, it's the approximately half million games missing that is the problem here. (This isn't even hyperbole or exaggeration - it comes from a sourced statement to this effect in the article currently.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essay describes a particular facet of WP:INDISCRIMINATE which is the actual relevant policy here. Saying it is "just an essay" while ignoring the policy behind it doesn't help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP: INDISCRIMINATE tells us to refer to WP: NLIST, which is the actual policy we should be talking about. It is just an essay, and the policies that are behind it firmly tell us that this article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The scope is too wide, it'll be impossible to both list and reliably source the subject in a comprehensive manner. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most mobile games are published on iOS and other platforms as well, I don't see a point of a list calling these "Android games". List of iOS games and probably others should be deleted too because very few of them are specifically "iOS games". Agree that this is impractical and misleading, even if considering only notable games and not the "half million" missing. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Too much for such lists. Do we need every game of the Angry Birds franchise? And what about games that pre-existed Android? SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any exclusive games for Android? If the games are ported everywhere, no reason to have them on this list. Dream Focus 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD brought up several interviews, but those are primary sources, and arguments used there do not rise to our current standards. Besides the one SIGCOV Dean Takahashi piece brought up in the previous AfD, it appears to fail WP:NCORP with just trivial mentions and announcements of their closure. Merge to Hasbro perhaps? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Colorado. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hasbro , since the firm was acquired by Hasbro and the purchase and its subsequent closing were mentioned on that page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HLSW[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. toweli (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to be found. Charcoal feather (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too, couldn't find any sigcov on the topic from reliable sources. MK at your service. 11:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some searching too, and couldn't find any credible information to back this up. Deletion seems like the right call. Waqar💬 17:33, 1 July 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.

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: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - 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]

Spaceballs (demogroup)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Date with Death[edit]

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

The intent of this is not to be WP:BITEy with a new editor, but they did move the draft to mainspace themselves rather than go through WP:AFC so I think it's fair game. I am reasonably certain this game fails WP:GNG, with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review. GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I believe the Template:Notability tag should have been applied to the article rather than outright proposed deletion. Secondly, WP:HELPAFD states, “On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source. “ These guidelines are met here. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by WP:BITEing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced. The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The plot section is completely WP:UGC. MK at your service. 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC). IgelRM (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the Template:Notability tag for the time being.

Regarding MK's last comment, WP:UGC refers to sourcing things like blogs and forums, which I did not do. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no new significant coverage surfaces within that timeframe, I will accept the consequences. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification. We could use a few more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early. Cortador (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 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) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Abzû, their most successful game. As it is, the sources don't meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayward Realms[edit]

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

The game has only recently launched a Kickstarter and while there seems to be a bunch of positive press about the potential of this eventual game, that does not mean that it will actually happen (a bit of WP:CRYSTAL combined with the unsure nature of Kickstarter campaigns). I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST. There are a lot more PCGamesN articles, GamesRadar+ and GameStar, just to name a few. It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing. Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly enough coverage to make it significant, not to mention the team is made up of industry veterans instead of newcomers. But yes, the sources really should be cleaned up. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of established gaming sites discuss it, and the team behind it has a proven track record. Sure, the sources could be stronger, but let's focus on making the article better, not getting rid of it altogether. Waqar💬 17:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway[edit]

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [9] [10] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Redirects[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate