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

Zero Hour (video game)

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

Found reviews in The Games Machine and Softonic, and a news mention in PCGamesN. While this isn't terrible it also isn't enough to pass WP:GNG because PCGamesN doesn't really offer up any critical opinions, and everything else is an unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn to Life (video game series)

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

I could not find anything in particular about the series that merits a standalone series page or passes WP:GNG. The main article has been the first game for a very long time and there was no particular reason to diverge from that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playmox

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

No sources contribute to Playmox passing the general notability guideline, and a search shows no sources other than ones that don't pass the GNG. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found that wasn't a passing mention or linked to the service itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef RPG

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

Referenced only two primary sources from YouTube and a web store. Before search did not present anything that makes this game notable for an entry here Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It got a substantive mention in Rock Paper Shotgun. While it got mentions in Softonic, and a preview in RPGFan, these mostly have a purely descriptive feel to them without much opinions. I think it falls short of the bar for actual critical analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outfolded

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

This article falls just short of the general notability guideline. After a WP:BEFORE search, I had found a couple articles from reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. However, the last three sources do not contain significant coverage of the article's subject. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Softonic also gave it a review. I think there's just enough here to indicate the game got recognized by mainstream sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second. Is Softonic a reliable source? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be trustworthy, has full editorial guidelines, and forbids AI created reviews. If you have evidence that it's not reliable you are free to discuss it in WP:VG/S, but I can't see why it should be excluded from being an RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Sources 3 and 6 are RS. The Softronic link above seems to be a RS, they do have an editorial page as described. More coverage than what we normally see in video game articles. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is about as barely notable as it gets using the WP:THREE method, but the Softonic, 4Gamer and GameZebo articles are RS that describe the game at some level of detail and express evaluative opinions about it. That's not a lot, and the other RS aren't really anything approaching a review, but it's just enough to be notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear sufficiently notable. FactorNews article alone seems below significant coverage and Sébastien Delahaye reflection mentions their FTP server. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and France. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem like reliable/significant coverage. Searched for sources in French & English and cannot find any (except blogs) either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG according to what I could find. Last AfD kept the article on the basis that the subject has lots of WP: GOOGLEHITS, which is an argument that is deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VoxelStorm

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the company itself. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to AdvertCity. Company lacks in notability in general but game's article is much more well documented and written, so the latter will do unless the game's article is deleted, MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameRevolution

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

Half of this article is sourced from Game Revolution itself. Not seeing enough secondary sources on the site which makes this website appear to not be notable to get its own article. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Websites. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the sources, none of them clearly give reliable/significant/independent/secondary coverage. The only possible ones are the two sources (DMW & Reuters) discussing the purchase, but the coverage is not very significant, and the Reuters one is explicitly a press release, while the DMW one is very likely one anyways. Google books/regular search reveal no sources and there is no obvious reason why any should exist, given it's a minor gaming news source that features in awards sometimes. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SIGCOV, and lack of notability. Encoded Talk 💬 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandatory (company) per WP:ATD

IgelRM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandatory (company) per WP:ATD. Does not seem standalone notable though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-running video game franchises

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

Per this discussion, WP:OR on deciding what makes a video game franchise long-running. "To qualify for this list, a video game franchise must have seen regular releases, with no more than 10 year-long gaps in-between, for at least 25 years, from a franchise's first release to its most recent" - what? Is this a requirement for entry to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame of video games? Unsourced, unclear and unneeded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:VG discussion. This page is unneeded, and pretty clearly just a breeding ground for original research. Definitely not something that belongs on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There can be no objective criteria for what counts as "longest-running" because of the many ways of interpreting that. As such, the page is not a viable one given the totally subjective way it interprets this as "from the oldest to the latest game released". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and the discussion linked in it that I had started at WT:VG. It's unsourced, with no hope of ever properly being sourced with all the WP:OR and faulty reasoning it was built upon. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a bad sign when, instead of summarizing the topic, a list starts with a whole paragraph explaining the arbitrary inclusion criteria. ApLundell (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a list that has been in covered to some extent in reliable sources, and the inclusion requirements strongly reek of OR. No real hope of saving the content. --Masem (t) 21:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced OR that does not seem to meet LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be inclined to keep such a list if it was well-supported by sources characterizing the long-running nature of the individual franchises, and was the subject of coverage as a category in sources, but neither is evident here. BD2412 T 02:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past discussion and everyone above. They've said everything I can about this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The selection criteria are arbitrary and original. Definitely failing WP:LISTCRIT. YuniToumei (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete, per all the reasons above, particularly ZX. Conyo14 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't think of what to say here, everything wrong about this ridiculous article had been called out. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

AfDs for this article:

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

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([6], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([7], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([8]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([9]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though not easily searchable, Chess Life is available on line. I haven't found a better way to search it than googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + search term. Googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com FICS" yields a few hits but also a lot of false positives. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Just a note that it is important to search in chess source by the acronym FICS as well as by the complete name to see all text referring to the Free Internet Chess Server. There is coverage in the following books (some are in snippet view but the "FOUND INSIDE" view on the search page was promising) and journals: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 19 and the Sage journal are inaccessible in their entirety. Could you give an overview of what their contents are? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4meter4's slapdash citing of trivial coverage is precisely not how AfDs are supposed to operate. Rather than saying there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we should confirm which ones, if any, are significant. From that list it is not confirmable whether SIGCOV exists, and the fact that most are clearly trivial makes me lose faith in whether 4meter4 has actually checked before making that claim. People are free to recreate the page afterwards as a redirect if they add some info from a reliable source to Internet chess server, but there does not seem to be anything to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Rhodo's sources? Plus, I sampled 4 sources, and all of them had a few paragraphs of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Being used for studies" does not constitute significant coverage. Whatever the study is researching is what is being covered there, rather than the tools used to accomplish the research. As for the SIGCOV it would help if you said which specific sources, since almost everything I noted was trivial or I could not access enough to determine whether there was sufficient content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I misread Rhodo's sources, sorry about that.
[8], for example. 3 paragraphs describing what it is (and in a major instructional book). It addresses the subject directly and in detail enough to extract the information without OriginalResearch, thus it is SigCov. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I want to provoke you into a delete !vote, all I have to do is cite a bunch of random trivial mentions? I'm sure that's not really the case, but it sounds like you're objecting to what you consider to be an undisciplined source search rather than the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you cite 20 trivial mentions, then I'm probably not going to read through all of them and pick out what few, if any, are significant. People are not required to check every single source carefully before !voting. The admin can determine whether someone is being negligent with their vote and discount it, but frankly they're not likely to bother either because the burden is on the article creator, not them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I made several edits to the page, adding some citations, reorganizing, and removing a lot of the poorly sourced how-to material. Some of the sources aren't going to help notability, but a few are, so I'll draw your attention to (a) a recent book, The Chess Revolution, where it looks like FICS comes up on several pages. My Google Books preview is limited, but it's clear it's more than brief mentions. (b) an article in The Chicago Chess Player is exactly the sort of thing we'd see more of if this weren't in the early/pre-web era. Most chess publications at the time would've had articles on FICS, either on its own or as part of the ICS/ICC saga or in the context of internet chess more broadly. If folks have archives of Chess Life or the various regional publications, it would be worth a scan of issues from the latter half of the 90s. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Article appears to start on page 9 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments:

Chess Life is indeed available online, at [28]. It can be painfully slow to load, for example, the issues for one year (such as 1996), but once loaded, they are easily searched. I am a subscriber, and I don't remember reading anything about FICS in it from back then, but that was a long time ago. I heard about FICS on the forums, where the drama of the split between ICC and FICS played out. I do not play online chess, but you couldn't miss that if you were on chess forums.
This AfD looks like a follow-up to, or precursor of, the recent AfD of Free Internet Backgammon Server (FIBS), which ended in deletion. If we end up keeping this one, perhaps we should apply the same search techniques to find more substantial sources for the other one. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of what could be called "internetism", a strain of deletionism that asserts that if something cannot be easily found on the internet then it isn't notable. FIBS was indeed a significant early backgammon site and still functioning today. Afd's such as this one only add to Wikipedia's inherent WP:RECENTISM bias, in which for example recent sports events are given significantly more detailed coverage than earlier ones. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Chicago Chess Player includes an interview with Daniel Sleator by "Tim Krabb" [sic], "for an article in New In Chess magazine about Internet chess (which will appear mid-May". So if anyone has access to 1996 issues of NIC, that looks like an excellent place to look Bruce leverett (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I agree there seems to be some concerns over the depth of coverage, I do have to concur with Zx that 4meter4's sources are a bit hit or miss. A large chunk just briefly mention the server as a host for something, or the fact it exists. A few sources seem promising (Such as a few of the book sources) but those I'm unable to access in their entirety, so I can't gauge their depth of coverage properly. I won't vote one way or the other just yet since I'd like to see some more research be done into some of these sources, but I do feel this discussion would benefit from a more thorough BEFORE. If nothing else springs up in the next few days, I'll take a look myself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. To be sure, this kind of early-web topic is tricky to source with sources Wikipedia considers reliable, but while borderline, it does appear that this is on the keepable side of the line to me. I wouldn't exactly use this AFD as precedent elsewhere but it seems like there is sufficient coverage, even if I wouldn't hold my breath for this becoming a FA. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources, exactly, compelled you to !vote Keep? Given the lack of explanation from others with the same opinion, apparently taking the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES standpoint, it would be useful to know, as I might even do the same if I saw some excellent sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomas

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

Has little reliable source coverage. Only ones I could find were these: [29], [30], [31], [32]. The sources listed do not give significant coverage; therefore, the article's subject fails the GNG. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not demonstrate notability as above, while cited sources are from sites of dubious quality as well as forums and Giant Bomb which are unreliable sources. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FloodSim

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete however please note the sourcing linked in the original deletion discussion. I think that sourcing in itself doesn't quite hit the substance required of notability, as they seem to largely be primary sources and "brief" comments as acknowledged. Could be more out there if a WP:BEFORE hasn't been done. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II

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

I'll be frank: I recognize a lot of work went into this and it feels like a significant passion project. But that said I also recognize there's a lot wrong with this article: several sources feel like they were synthesized to say far more than they did, and a vast majority say really next to nothing.

There's not a lot of indication to give any real-world importance of the character; you get some gameplay commentary but that exists in a bubble related to their relative games and much of it is strictly from reviews. What isn't from reviews is bare bones reaction and a lot of repetition. It just resoundingly fails notability and SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 26 November 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) 19:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge: Though I myself created an article for Kunimitsu a couple years back, I don't see this article holding up very well, given the current standards held for character articles (which I have mixed feelings on, to say the least). There might be a couple good sources in there to help notability, but it's not enough. There is some impressive work in there, but some of the sources are also either questionable or outright unreliable. Fighter's Generation, for instance, is a fan site, thus its unreliable. Also, Event Hubs, which the article heavily cites, is deemed unreliable at WP:VG/S. Some of this content can go in Characters of the Tekken series. MoonJet (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like a WP:REFBOMB that lacks significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Monkeys

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

Article does not meet the general notability guideline; the only reliable source I could find was this. All other sources point to blogs, app listings, or self-published sources. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was unable to find additional coverage in reliable sources - the Pocket Gamer article already noted by nom is all I saw. Agreed that most of the existing sourcing on the article doesn't appear reliable. Waxworker (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough WP:SIGCOV for this topic. If someone can think of a redirect target, that could be a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Louie

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

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [33] counts as independent. A Vox article [34] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: This is from an old magazine [35], with the Christian Science Monitor, should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is the same person [36], was involved in Tetris coming to popularity. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimitsu

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

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 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) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm leaning forward to being neutral in this situation. I feel like there's a chance the character might be notable since they have been involved in two fighting game franchises and have almost appeared in every main game of each franchise and gone through multiple distinct designs. Otherwise, the best source I could find about Yoshimitsu is [37]. These sources might also help [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]. Aside from that, this character has three incarnations throughout the Tekken and Soulcalibur franchises, so if the character information is going to be merged, then the Tekken version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Tekken series, and the Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Soulcalibur series. Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just not notable. The WP:GNG is clearly failed here. If this page is redirected, it should be moved and the DAB made primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Very little SIGCOV and a very clear-cut case of not much notability existing for him. I'd redirect Yoshimitsu (Soulcalibur) and Yoshimitsu (Tekken) to their respective character lists, since he's a character of two different franchises, and redirect Yoshimitsu (No distinction) to the DAB page to be the primary topic, per Zx. Both lists just redirect to his article, so content will need to be merged to them for the information to be retained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kazama16's sources. Den of Geek (both of them) and CGmagonline are the strongest sources. Those two, plus GamesRadar and Bloody Disgusting and Game Rant, which all discuss his design and unorthodox fighting style, compared to other fighting game characters, may also be of some help. The more trivial sources can definitely be trimmed down, but overall, I feel this isn't redirect-worthy. I can see this being a Voldo type of situation, where most of the notability comes from his "freakish" design and unorthodox fighting style. MoonJet (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated, the Bloody Disgusting source would be good...but it's just saying the same thing as the CMag and previous Game Rant sources. Much like there's only so many times you can say "this character is sexy" in an article, "this character is freaky" starts to get repetitive fast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. This is borderline, but merge is a good WP:ATD that will WP:PRESERVE this in case better sources come along later. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch^[1]^[2] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),^[3]^[4] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),^[5] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?

Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:

"In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;^[6] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;^[7] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. While this subject was biggest in the pre- and early-web days (BBS chat, IRC, etc.), emotes are still part of many current chat systems. Any of the many books about internet chat would have a bit about this. It's not an overlap with emoji, which are graphical emoticons, not emotes. It's possible there's not a whole lot to say about this, in which case a merge probably makes sense, but I'm not sure where to merge to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any of the books on this on hand? Mostly asking because those sources would greatly help with covering this subject if they do exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

[1] Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.

[2] Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[3] "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[4] Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[5] Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[6] Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.

[7] Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]