Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VG/D)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games.
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:
Purge page cache watch

See also Games-related deletions.

Video games-related deletions edit

Omocat edit

Omocat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Omocat is not independently notable of Omori (video game), and the majority of sourcing in this article is about the game and not Omocat beyond some passing mentions. WP:GNG failure. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 2, 3, and 4 are all about OMOCAT themself and not specifically OMORI. Additionally, OMOCAT has their own successful individual page on the Japanese Wikipedia.
OMOCAT fits the notability requirement in that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The articles and reviews about OMORI itself fit the requirement: "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work". Because of this, it's significant to mention OMORI as it is their most well-known work. Their fashion line, independent of OMORI, has garnered attention in the U.S and Japan, hence their article in Japanese Wikipedia. Alexapar21 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals edit

Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not have articles for video game "seasons" unless there is a very clear reason why it warrants a separate article (aka meeting notability), which this does not. Also falls into WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT territory. λ NegativeMP1 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) edit

SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The disambiguation page fails WP:DAB as it only lists one topic and not many topics, thus not making it a valid DAB. It's also a good idea to delete the dab pages that redirect to that page as well. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator doesn't understand WP:DAB (or I'm being stupid), but it looks like it disambiguates between a bunch of pages. In particular:
"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"
"The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses." Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @User:AMK152. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep plenty of different assumptive uses for this DAB page. AMK152 put it best. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term "SpongeBob SquarePants" is not ambiguous. Per WP:DABCONCEPT, this should be an article, not a disambiguation page, because "the primary meaning of" SpongeBob SquarePants "is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article". In fact, the concept of SpongeBob SquarePants already has an article, SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise), and that article describes each of the items listed on this DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Soldiers edit

Stick Soldiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline but I would appreciate a sanity check from someone more experienced in videogames. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stick Soldiers 2 has marginal interest from sources with WP:NONENG ([1][2]) or a dubious CNET write-up ([3]) but I think it's comfortable to delete here: those three sources would be shaky ground to establish independent notability for that game, and the other games and the series as a whole seem not to have enough coverage to merit an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:02, 6 May 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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake edit

AfDs for this article:
Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article. Clearfrienda 💬 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game: [6] - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine: [7] - Mika1h (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rick Jay Glen edit

Rick Jay Glen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page. Hornpipe2 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this Hornpipe2 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the user Rickory and Rick Jay Glen himself. I don't actually care if the article gets deleted. I'm happy to provide whatever resources might be needed, but this article was created several years ago when we (at Fantawild) created the "Boonie Bears" and "Fantawild Animation" Wiki articles and I've only edited a few times that I can recall. I'm not here to debate whether or not my life and career are accurate or worthy of a Wikipedia article. It's irrelevant to me. Leave it up or don't. I'm indifferent. I don't care.
    It's not something I keep up with anyway. But if it looks like a self-promo page, just know that actors use IMDb to network and display verified credits, not an "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Rickory (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources added. Content has been edited and cut down to remove fluff. 2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability. Orange sticker (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger edit

Kelly Metzger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies? edit

Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep, the print sources Laukku found constitute sigcov, and should together with the other be enough to meet GNG.--AlexandraIDV 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA edit

Atlus USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atlus. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be Atlus? Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, yes; although merging most into Atlus doesn't appear feasible to me, so perhaps redirect to Atlus would be a more accurate AFD close while still preserving for future editors. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Functionally, a merge or redirect is the same result for the topic article. Just a matter of "review for mergeable content first" really. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 talk to me 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems quite notable per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind identifying the three best sources demonstrating notability for Atlus USA? Woodroar (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It currently fails WP:NCORP. I looked at the first block of references in detail and quickly looked at the second block. The first block is mostly made up of profiles with no byline, routine business news, PR and interviews with leading folk in the company, none of which passes WP:SIRS or WP:ORGIND. The second block is just equally as bad. It is completely non-notable. Possible small merge to main article, a sentence or two at most as they're is nothing to support anything bigger. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1222895057"