Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion/2015

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games‎ | Deletion

April 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prey 2 edit

Prey 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prey 2 has been cancelled, according to a statement from developers Bethesda Softworks during PAX Australia 2014. This debate is to give a final disposition to this cancelled game. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG, see the plethora of reliable sources in references. Cancellation alone does not disqualify a topic from having an article. Esquivalience t 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's current sourcing is reliable and fine, but there's even more in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar ⨹ 01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing seems more than sufficient to allow me to feel comfortable about keeping this as a standalone article. I wouldn't exactly oppose a proposition to merge it into Prey (video game)#Sequel but I don't think it is necessary -- at this point, it would be an editorial content decision. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not a good nomination. There are a ton of sources already in the article, and even more to be found upon searching. As Salv says above, sometimes when this happens its appropriate to merge it to the original game's article, but there's plenty of content available already in the article, so that's not a good choice either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 6 May 2015 (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.

April 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. czar ⨹ 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Genesis edit

Oath of Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, no claims of notability and only primary or self-generated sources available. Declined speedy since A7 does not apply to software products. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of notability for this recently-published game. The WP:SPA contributor is also the item's author and publisher. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT. The article is based on primary sources and only talks about gameplay, plot, story and release. The article has nothing to suggest that it is notable and a Google search did not help. — Yash! [talk] 02:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Dolescum (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Game is currently in review under IMDb and other game rating sites. Also provided official website and fan page. Search about "Oath of Genesis" and "Oath of Genesis ML" and you can learn about it. Game information is available on Wiki. So, there is more reason to delete this article. KevalPandya (Talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: IMDb rating is ready for insertion into wikipedia article. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Is there anything I need to prove that my article has notability ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Some days ago a article was released in newspaper about owner and oath of genesis game by writer. Can it be submit as evidence as notability and independent source ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • @KevalPandya: It depends on various factors like the newspaper, who wrote it, what the newspaper is in relation to the game/owner, and so on. For example, if the LA Times wrote about the game and was not just reprinting a press release (or basing the bulk of the article on the press release) then that could be used. However if the owner's college newspaper wrote about the game/owner then that cannot be used since the owner attends the college and they would have a vested interest in writing about him. Similarly if the game is only briefly mentioned in relation to something else and/or is only 1-3 sentences long, then that won't show a depth of coverage and would be a WP:TRIVIAL source at best. The only way to really know is to see the newspaper article in question, to be honest. I also want to clarify a bit on the IMDb ratings. Since these ratings are the result of anonymous users logging in to the system and leaving a rating, they cannot be used as a reliable source for notability. At best IMDb can be used as a trivial source to back up basic information like cast lists and release information and even then that can be debatable. For example, at one point this one woman managed to successfully insert a profile in IMDb that asserted that she was going to play She-Hulk in one of the previous Avengers movies. This ended up being false and it was removed, but it took a really, really long time for IMDb to catch this- and this was on a very high profile film. That's kind of the reason why IMDb is kind of unusable for most data, let alone notability purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically what you need right now are reviews in outlets like IGN, PC Gamer, and other review outlets that would show up as critical reviews on places like Metacritic. Examples of this can be seen here and here. I'm not really seeing this and to be honest, it doesn't look like there is any coverage at all for this game. Primary sources (anything released by the company itself) cannot show notability and to be honest, you really shouldn't be showing merchant links in the article at all. Not only can this be seen as an attempt to promote the game, but a large reason why they're considered inappropriate is because including these links can be seen as an endorsement of the product and the sellers/websites and Wikipedia wants to avoid seeming like they endorse any specific product or seller. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to AfC. Right now this game does not pass notability guidelines. There has been no coverage of the game in any outlet, at least in any that we can verify. There is apparently a news article out there, but that one news article will not be enough to show notability for the game. I think that the best course of action right now is to move this to the draftspace at WP:AfC. Not only will this give the editor a chance to work on the article while more sources become available, but AfC will allow another editor to look at the article and approve it before it gets resubmitted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to AfC. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Pax 09:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information, details, sources and references are updated. Check and review. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • You cannot !vote "Keep" more than once in the same deletion debate. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't found any coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, as some others have pointed out, judging by the article creator and game creators same name, there's very likely some WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues here as well. (Sidenote: Also strange that all the characters of this game take character names from this game.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have submitted IMDb source. Also I have submitted Wikia Article. But both has removed it. Also, owner of game can submit article to Wikipedia. The point of view of article writer should be neutral. So, I have submitted as view of normal editor. Also, I haven't put any promotion links or text for game promotion. Soon I will submit rating from game rating sites as notability and independent source. So, there should be no objection about this article on Wikipedia. KevalPandya (Talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Again, please stop writing "Keep" before every comment you make. Its only done once per discussion, so the discussion closer can roughly see the number individuals who contributed, and their stance to go with it. You've said "Keep" once already, so you shouldn't any more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Icekings25 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)I don't think that this page should be deleted. Its obvious that this guy is a new user so it takes time for the independent sources and I think that soon it will pass notability guidelines. So he must get some more time to prove himself.[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason to keep an article. I don't mean to be blunt, but if he doesn't know what he's doing, he shouldn't be trying to create entire articles all by himself yet. But regardless, the fate of the article is decided by the third party reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, not the skill-level of the editor. Additionally, I find it rather suspicious that your first edit in 2 years, and your 3rd edit all time, was to leave a comment here at a deletion discussion. Please be aware that this is not a vote, and that editors are not to be asking for people to comment just to defend their article for them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keval Pandya (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC): @Sergecross73... Hello, Icekings25 is my companion and i told him to give review about my article. I didn't tell him to defend my article from deletion. As I mentioned before, I will submit reviews by game rating sites as they approve it. What we want is little time to edit article. So, I request you to remove deletion tag from article. And in future if you see any text related to game promotion, you can delete my article even without notice. So, I request you.[reply]
  • That is not how Wikipedia handles things though. If no sources exist during the course of these discussions, then the article would be deleted for now, and recreated only if/when enough third party sources cover the title in detail. If you wish to pursue creating the article after it gets deleted, you can still work on a WP:DRAFT and then get it approved through the AFC process - Articles for Creation. (This is what the editors above were referring to.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft. There are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, which is definitely a bad sign. If we move it to draft space, the author can work on it in peace and add sources as they become available. That's a viable alternative to deletion, though I kind of doubt that it will become notable in any reasonable period of time given its current lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NinjaRobotPirate... Hello, I saw a Wikipedia page like mine game. Ys: The Ark of Napishtim. Can you differentiate that page and mine. Both page has given same sources. Also, admin has just put "verification" tag on that. There is no speedy deletion tag on that page. On other hand, i have also given information from IMDb. One editor has complained me that, that I have edited every thing. But, i have just put plot correctly and my profile small bio correctly. Everything else is generated by IMDb. So, Please remove speedily deletion tag from this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevalPandya (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated. It doesn't matter if you add a link to the IMDb. The other article is notable because it has coverage in reliable sources. If you do a Google search for that article, it turns out there are many reviews listed at Metacritic, including IGN. Notability is intrinsic to a topic, and sources merely need to exist rather than be listed in the article. That means that nobody is forced to add sources to the article, but they should. If no sources exist, then the article can be deleted. That's what's going on here. We need coverage in reliable source, and the IMDb is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, a simple search shows that there are all sorts of sources available for the Ys article you listed above. There's 35 separate reviews at the PS2 version's MetaCritic page alone. The difference is that there are zero reviews available at MetaCritic for Oath of Genesis, and zero sources available at all for it that aren't connected to you. I assure you that, if someone nominated that Ys article for deletion, someone would point out all the sources that exist but just aren't on there yet, and the deletion discussion would be dismissed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, there is a difference between a badly written article about a notable subject and an ariicle about a subject that is not notable.--64.229.166.24 (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I can't even find a page on Gamefaqs for this. The IMDB page does not sound like its a video game either looking over it. Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (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.

April 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Michig (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloodborne characters edit

List of Bloodborne characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of characters is not notable enough to have its own page. Very limited information is provided. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what was already said here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in merge discussion, not worth redirecting and a list of only 2 characters with no significant commentary. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character lists tend to fall under WP:GAMECRUFT if not notable enough, and this is no exception. BlookerG talk 12:02, 26 April 2015 (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.

April 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Mojang. Two "Keep" opinions were provided. One was a generic WP:PERABOVE which I've set aside as it's not clear to what it is referring. The other offers more detail, but there's no clear rationale for keeping that's based on a policy. Redirecting rather than deleting as a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinnerbone edit

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

Aside from working as a programmer for a company that has received a decent amount of attention, the subject of this page does not convey that this individual is any more notable than the forty-six other Mojang employees. Unless there are sources that indicate that this figure has achieved something notable themselves, this page should be deleted. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are news links from over the years but nothing significant or notable and Books found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking over various factors, he has 428,000 followers on Twitter and 42,000 subscribers on YouTube which is better than most developers. And using this search it seems he's a public facing developer, being quoted plenty of times about news, changes and releases relating to Minecraft. I can at least say there's no mention of his rework of the Minecraft Ender Dragon and other points that would be worth mentioning in the article --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on User:DerryAdama's comments, it seems reasonable to keep the article. Dinnerbone is probably the most widely recognizable employee of Mojang, after Bergensten and Persson, even ranking higher than Mojang's co-founders. Whether this is due to prevalence online in social (or other) media or otherwise is debatable, but ultimately the perks of being a 'public facing' developer makes this article worth keeping. After all, one wouldn't propose a the page for a writer's magnum opus for deletion only because their other books aren't notable enough for articles of their own. Plot Citizen (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the article is fluff and can be summarized in one sentence the company article under a section called "key people" or something. Additionally this article is basically an orphan, except for being included on the Mojang template. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:17, 28 April 2015 (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.

April 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a skull edit

It's a skull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded for WP:GNG and WP:NSONG with no references and no claim of notability. Prod removed with the comment, "this is definitely relevant, and the capitalization is correct per the original usage. this is one of the first "memes" -- thus its historical relevance. (I deleted the recommendation for article deletion)" Now brought to AfD for further discussion. Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I know this song exists, and the user who removed the prod was correct, this was one of the first "memes", in the middle 1990s, before most of the people who use "memes" were even born. However, the only references I can supply are to the magazine itself. I had the actual song on an AP coverdisk myself from the middle 1990s to the middle 2000s, but I fear I have since thrown it away. I might still have the actual file saved on my computer (I transferred the entire hard disk of my A4000 to a modern Linux PC before the A4000 died), but I'm not at all certain about it. JIP | Talk 19:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The calls for keep above have no policy-backed rationale. If the subject is indeed important, it will have received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. I would entertain a redirect to Before the War (as a useful search term) but only if this subject was mentioned and reliably sourced within the article, which it is not. czar ⨹ 21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (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.
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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud9 (team) edit

Cloud9 (team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability is given. Notability tag was removed without any effort made to show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intrinsic problem is that articles like this straddle WP:CREATIVE, WP:ATHLETE, WP:COMPANY and WP:ENT. The frontline gamers who are known both as entertainers and eSports Competitors, if we cross WP:PORNBIO into this where to be notable you need to have awards and substantial investment into a scene, then C9 have fulfilled this. Per WP:ENT, They even have a significant cult following as can be shown in the support present like in their recent performance in the NA LCS Springslit. Per WP:COMPANY there is even more Secondary and tertiary coverage to C9. Ideally WP:ESPORTS task force needs to come up with guidelines on this, but due to the only editors working on WP:ESPORTS articles being @ImRespawn and Prisencolinensinainciusol: the coverage is sparse, so just give it a WP:CHANCE, don't WP:DEMOLISH and allow for some WP:POTENTIAL.
Links
And some More
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As DerryAdama has pointed out Cloud9 has had pretty extensive coverage, including in some mainstream outlets. I've noticed that a number of esports articles end up getting nominated for deletion by an editor who is presumably unfamiliar with the subject. That being said I'm going to see if I can draft up some esports notability guidelines so it's a bit clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with this Engadget article. Yes, its a RS, but very little of the article is about Cloud 9, and of that already small part, much of it is a few direct quotes from one of their members rather than any coverage on them. And the IGN source? Less than 2 sentences of it actually discuss Cloud 9 itself. I hope there are better sources out there, so far every one I'm checking is very trivial coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to League of Legends Championship Series or another competition article, maybe Dota? I reviewed all of the above sources. The only ones that matter for our purposes (secondary, reliable, independent sources) are:
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-league-of-legends-challenger-team/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/c9t-yusui-i-think-we-have-the-highest-amount-of-in/1100-6426693/ – an interview, so doesn't constitute secondary reporting
http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3496509/cloud9-acquires-smite-world-championship-winners-cognitive-prime – could work, but I'm concerned about reliability, no editorial policy
All the other stuff was passing/non-dedicated mentions or unreliable sources. At most, the reliable ones of the lot could be used to source a few sentences on the team's sponsorships, but not much more. I'm willing to change my mind if others can find articles from vetted video games sources. Myself, I found only passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search—not nearly enough to justify an article. I'd entertain a redirect to one of the competitions as a useful search term, but I'm not seeing enough to write a sourced article on the team, as is. And for the whole content guideline discussion above—the only relevant guideline for this article type is the general notability guideline: either sources exist or they don't. In this case, the sourcing is very thin. Please ping me if you find more (non-English and offline) sources. czar ⨹ 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: with the custom search; did you search Cloud 9 or Cloud9 because Cloud 9 doesn't bring any relevant results but "Cloud9" does. Showing IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer and gamestar.hu on the first page. Then miastogier.pl, polygon.com and 4gamer.net on the second.--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both (as well as other variants), but I also established that having a bunch of search hits from IGN, Kotaku, doesn't actually mean that the subject was covered in any meaningful way. I reviewed the sources and only listed those that I thought mattered towards the subject's case. The rest were passing mentions and/or had just as much coverage about a number of other non-notable teams. czar ⨹ 02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you here. A ton of trivial mentions, very little significant coverage. I'd recommend a redirect as well, though I don't know what the best target would be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added League of Legends Championship Series as my suggested target. From the coverage, the team is best known for their League and Dota competition, so one of those where they're actually mentioned by name would be best. I chose the former. czar ⨹ 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually redirecting is an incredibly poor idea, as alone there are six other teams not including the LCS team in six different games. People coming here may be looking for information on the match fixing by C9 in the CS:GO sphere

The Dota team is the current record holder for the longest competitive game ever

There is plenty of coverage from reliable eSports sources like the DailyDot, but your search doesn't curate them as most of the Gaming news sites don't give much coverage to eSports, other than saying it exists.
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People also come for all sorts of things we don't provide. The idea of a redirect is to provide a reasonable result for someone looking for the subject, which the above redirect would do. This said, I dug around in your sources again (had seen the Kotaku article and pcgamesn has no hallmarks of reliability). http://www.dailydot.com/tags/cloud-9/ would be very useful if we considered Daily Dot reliable. I've brought the site up for consideration at WT:VG/RS. czar ⨹ 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect - per Czar, and my commentary above, to his redirect suggestions. Its a plausible search term, but right now, a vast majority of the coverage is extremely trivial. Redirect for now, and maybe spin it out to its own article if it gets a few more sources that are not first party, not trivial, and reliable, like the types of sources found at WP:VG/RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The initial spotchecked sources did not meet the definition of "significant coverage", but the ones pointed out by Czar and Hahnchen do, so I'm find with keeping now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found quite a few reliable sources focused on C9 that I'm starting to put in the article. I have no idea how everyone managed to find so few. There's even a print source, a cover article in Playboy that featured Cloud9. I think beyond a doubt that the article will be a keep. The only logical RD I can think of would be to something like List of esports teams or something, since C9 has a notable prsence in several games, not to the LCS article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Covered extensively in reliable sources independent of the subject. Playboy OnGamers Even teams which haven't been covered to this degree should probably be kept, and notability guidelines should more closely follow WP:NSPORT which is more almanac-y in nature than other video game guidelines. - hahnchen 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by --- :D Derry Adama shows the subject clearly passes GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Derry Adama's persuasive arguments. Pax 23:53, 26 April 2015 (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.

April 19 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Nakon 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megaverse Simulation Network edit

Megaverse Simulation Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiples Google News, Books and browser searches with "Megaverse Simulation Network" and with "Open Source" and "software" added provided nothing. I'm not an expert with software or this product but it seems there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Finding no secondary source coverage in the typical searches, but didn't look too hard considering that the "game" and "genre" aspect of the article's first draft appears to be a joke. The software is clearly described as a simulator and not a real-time strategy game. Please ping me if other sources, esp. non-English or offline, are found. czar ⨹ 02:24, 20 April 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 edit

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject; mostly promotional (article) in nature. Quis separabit? 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has been reviewed by many outlets that the video games wikiproject has deemed reliable. Prose quality concerns are not deletion concerns and can be easily fixed. Withdrawal recommended. czar ⨹ 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was just about to post the same link Czar had - and there's at least 3-4 good RS reviews in that list that meet WP:VG/S standards (eg PSM Magazine, Play Magazine, G4 TV). --MASEM (t) 01:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as described above. Not really promotional, just short with an excessive list of songs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is this a mistake? I don't see how it meets WP:PROMO. or fails notability. ― Padenton|✉   02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it was cleaned up. @Rms125a@hotmail.com czar ⨹ 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh that makes a little more sense. ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 22 April 2015 (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.

April 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. The Delete !votes are pretty much "not notable" without explanation and without addressing the sourcing unearthed by Satellizer ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kern edit

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

Doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. In its current state, the only information in here is that he used to work on World of Warcraft and that he used to work on Firefall. I'm not sure what could go into this article that couldn't be added to the articles on Firefall or World of Warcraft. Breadblade (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as
Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra
Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget
The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia
Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247
Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247
Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247
Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247
Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247
The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though many are duplicate coverage). czar ⨹ 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar ⨹ 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough sources for career history, not notable enough to be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page or any other game's pages except for Firefall.--Frybread (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (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.
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. North America1000 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Online Global edit

Dragon Ball Online Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note that a duplicate article was created at Dragon Ball Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed project that has no secondary source coverage. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (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.
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. Soft Deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derketo (Conan) edit

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

Character from the Conan series that was barley ever used at all-probably a redirect or merge be the best for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added some words to article about character being in a mmorpg and so added to wikiproject videgames deletion list. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2015 (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.

April 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Dissident's point is heard, but the subject does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:CREATIVE, and the article is practically just a credits list. I'm also opting not to redirect per WP:ASTONISH -- just because he's mention in the infobox of another article that is totally not about him doesn't mean the title should point there. This title can be recreated and redirected to an appaopriate target by anybody who finds one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This wasn't particularly strong consensus towards either outcome and I hesitated for a while between an NC, redirect or delete closure, and initially opted for what seemed the simplest (delete, with the option to redirect the title) -- however, after a request by the subject, I am changing my close for no consensus (thus restoring the article). Good points are raised in favor of keeping, deleting, or redirecting the article but no specific argument trumps any other. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Furniss edit

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

No non-trivial third-party coverage to indicate how the subject is notable. Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see why this is even up for debate, as Furniss is a well known sound designer from the 90s. It would be different if he worked on games without Wikipedia articles, but that isn't the case here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've already said, being involved with a production does not in itself satisfy WP:BIO notability. Robin Harlan has a lot more credits as a foley artist, but as with Furniss, you won't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93, if no sources discuss him in detail, would you at least be able to show that he is "well known" by the guideline for creative professionals? czar ⨹ 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Finding reliable third party sources on any vgm related topic can be difficult, even for the way more known ones such as Uematsu and Sakuraba. By the way, does rule number 3 on the RS link seems to contradict what Ohnoitsjamie said above, or am I mis-reading? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There would have to be some way of signifying his impact on the field, then. The very idea of Wikipedia is to report the sources and if there are no sources, there is no article we will be able to write, so there has to be a really good reason or some immense notability for doing so. What is rule #3? Don't see any numbered at WP:RS. czar ⨹ 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability indicated. The list of contributions is just a guy doing his job.--Rpclod (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2015 (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.

April 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's edit

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet general notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources. It is entirely composed of original research, and is written like a game guide. Wani (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be removed because I worked very hard on this article and I dedicated about 3 hours of my own life to this. I just want to help. I'll edit it and make it better, just please don't delete it.

There are other outlets to publish game guides, such as game wikis or wikias, your own website, etc. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a repository of all conceivable information. Articles must meet notability guidelines, and avoid what Wikipedia is not. Some content here might be incorporated into the main article, but effort does not count in discussions, policies and guidelines do. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and not meeting WP:LISTN. following up on my previous comment, very little, if any of this content belongs in the main article, and should simply be succinctly summarized. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gameguides are outside the scope of what we cover, but you can take it to another wiki. The minigames do not have independent coverage from outside sources. (?) Not worthwhile to redirect to the game. czar ⨹ 22:18, 14 April 2015 (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.
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 redirect to Nihilumbra. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeautiFun Games edit

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

Unremarkable games manufacturer. Seems to have only created 1 game, and no independent coverage or reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nihilumbra, the company's (as yet) sole creation. In the future, if they publish more notable titles, the redirect can be re-expanded into a full article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the company has only released one game and News searches show many results but basically all for the game. I can continue searching but I think I know what I'll find, not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 20 April 2015 (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.

April 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O2Jam edit

O2Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Notifying Woodroar, Marasmusine. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FAILN, I was unable to find any coverage any coverage beyond routine mentions of any game WP:ROUTINE, the only Scholarly article on the evolution of the Chinese gaming industry mentions in a list but nothing else. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend create an article for this content in Wikia.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. When weighing the arguments, I seem to lean towards a "keep" closure, but the points brought forward by Czar, NARH and Johnny aren't exactly dismissable either, so I'll close as NC (hoping Serge's sources will be used for the article), but with no objection if later consensus on the talk page is to redirect the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hopper edit

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

Another editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Virtual Boy games as a valid search term. @JohnnyMrNinja, this looks straightforward, so how would you feel about withdrawing the deletion nom for a redirect? (Such solutions are better outcomes to pursue before coming to AfD.) czar ⨹ 10:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like Nintendo Power. See here. 1up.com, a reliable source, covered it a bit, and suggested that Nintendo Power had even written a review for the game, according to this. This fansite seems to suggest it made appearances in a bunch of other print magazines at the time as well. I think this just barely scrapes above the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar ⨹ 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as barely meeting notability per the above. I did a quick search for Japanese sources and didn't find anything. I'm sure it was covered in Famitsu and other trade magazines, but their articles are not available online. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we not make "there must be sources" arguments? Let's try to find these external reviews before we keep based on their supposed existence and then no one ever does the sleuthing to find them. If we can also keep in mind the game wasn't actually released, so the existence of these reviews (Famitsu's for example) will have been a fluke—more unlikely than not. czar ⨹ 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we not dismiss something about which you obviously know very little? Famitsu and other trade magazines often have articles on games 1-2 years before they come out. They'll have announcement articles, productions articles, and even articles about a project which has been shut down. I never said there would be reviews, but simply articles about the game. I saw these kinds of articles all the time when I lived in Japan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar ⨹ 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are kept on the basis of sourcing potential all the time, especially when there is reason to believe that they're out there but we haven't found th all yet, the prime example being games of the early/mid 90s, when nothing's online and it's hard to track down print sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'd like to think that I've been following the vg AfD beat for a while now and I can't call recall a single AfD that was kept on the basis that coverage must exist somewhere, or that a Nintendo Power review may or may not exist and that Famitsu must have some non-English coverage. In fact, I haven't heard of articles being kept based on their potential for sourcing rather than what has actually been confirmed to exist (which is why "sources must exist" is at WP:ATA). I'm willing to even help look for coverage but we have zero leads that this other stuff exists. What are the chances that any editor will reasonably be willing to put in more effort than that? This article will have been kept at AfD and remain unsourced despite being non-notable. czar ⨹ 02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the article is kept, it'd be because a nationally published , well-known, reliable source magazine did a 2 page article on it, and that people reasonably assumed that somewhere out there in the world, there's a second print source out there to make it meet the "multiple sources" aspect of the GNG. (Not to mention, the various brief mentions out there.) Also, I've been commenting at AFD for at least as long as you have as well - I know there's precent for my stance as well. I'll have to do some digging to find some examples... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (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.
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. In the absence of reliable sources, a smerge seems inadvisable. Deor (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Is Magic: Premium edit

Fighting Is Magic: Premium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, sourced solely to blogs. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (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.

April 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion, notably after the thorough discussion of sources by Tokyogirl79, can be summed up as "no consensus between delete and weak keep". There was canvassing but this does not seem to have noticeably skewed the outcome. The article survives by default by a slim margin, but can be relisted if it is not improved in terms of sourcing in a reasonable amount of time.  Sandstein  21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG edit

AfDs for this article:
MonsterMMORPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the game. Quinto Simmaco and I read through the references and they are little more than game guides, interviews, and/or Pokemon comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - It has significant coverage in reliable sources, which means it probably passes the notability threshold. Engadget, SiliconEra are easy-to-find English language sources; there many more sources in other languages (which is understandable since the dev himself is Turkish). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
@Salvidrim!, courtesy ping, considering the discussion below czar ⨹ 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I see some coverage, but I don't see it as significant. Engadget and Siliconera are both interviews, which is uncomfortably close to SPS territory. Merlin'in Kazanı and Techshout are trivial. The others may be high-quality, reliable sources, but I think a native speaker familiar with WP:IRS—or, preferably, WP:VG/RS—would need to weigh in on that. They certainly look to me like the spammy linkspam/game guide sites we generally consider unreliable (as others mentioned above), but of course looks can be deceiving. Woodroar (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Woodroar why? Because Woodroar is certainly not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. I believe he/she is under very heavy influence of others and also and an article written by him/her has litte to 0 noteable references (Young)_Pioneers which makes claim very biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I may have been under the influence of others last month, maybe even last week. But I haven't consumed anyone for at least a few days. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were the aforementioned Engadget/Joystiq interview and this PR mention. Not nearly enough to substantiate an article, but one Turkish source looks okay: Oyungezer is a print magazine. For me, this nom hinges on haberimport, which appears to follow a press ethics policy for reliability. If the site was deemed reliable, I would change my conclusion, but its article on MonsterMMORPG appears to be lifted in large part from a press release. The phrase "Oyun sayfasında temel olarak harita ekranını kullanıyoruz." shows up in several other sources as well as another cited source. Repackaged press releases wouldn't count as significant coverage, leaving an interview, a small article, and a few passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are unearthed. czar ⨹ 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:czar why? Because I found an article written by him/her which I believe he/she is related to Brainwashed_(website) with little to nothing references. So I don't believe he/she is fully objective with this decision and it is biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As for coverage the MonsterMMORPG page has four references listed - video game reliable sources. The listings are as following: full article by Jessica Conditt on Joystiq, full article by Chris Priestman on siliconera (Alexa Rank: 10454 , Page Rank: 5), game listing on GameSpot and editorial given game wiki on IGN. They also include the following references that are English and all have editorial publishing: Kyle Hayth article on browsergamez (Alexa Rank: 208890, Page Rank: 4), Remko Molenaar and Darren Henderson editors article at OnRPG (Alexa Rank: 68021, Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, game listing on whatmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 817321 , Page Rank: 2), editorial game listing and special given developer blog on mmorpg.com (Alexa Rank: 12513 , Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, editorial approved game listing on indiedb (Alexa Rank: 16606, Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on gameslikefinder (Alexa Rank: 50514 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on xmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 209912 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on gameguyz (Alexa Rank: 59045 , Page Rank: 3), game listing by staff Demetrius Crasto on techshout (Alexa Rank: 84868 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on newrpg (Alexa Rank: 1248161 , Page Rank: 0), editorial game listing on mmogames (Alexa Rank: 38427 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on kpopstarz (Alexa Rank: 11928 , Page Rank: 5).
The non english noteable references are as follows: game article and extensive video by Marlene Kless on games.de (German, Alexa Rank: 313642 , Page Rank: 4), editorial game listing on 07073.com (Chinese, Alexa Rank: 3197 , Page Rank: 5), game article, listing and review by Allan Valin on baixaki.com.br (Portuguese, Alexa Rank: 593 , Page Rank: 6), game review by Anh Đức on game4v.com (Vietnamese, Alexa Rank: 9576 , Page Rank: 2) which is currently maintenance but visible at google cache, game review by M.İhsan Tatari on oyungezer (Turkish, Also Printed, Alexa Rank: 34818 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Ceyda Doğan on merlininkazani (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 18095 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Engin Yüksel on teknolojioku (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 16365 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game news on indir.com (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 27852 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on frpnet.net (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 170997 , Page Rank: 4).
There absolutely could be more listings, news or articles added, but when all the information provided is consireded, I believe this game deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. Knost05 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) — Knost05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alexa and Page Rank don't matter. The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles. We don't care about games databases, fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published articles, or trivial content like two sentences and a screenshot. We need substantial articles written by third-parties to prove that a subject is important enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. (What other languages allow or don't allow also doesn't matter. They're all separate.) I should also mention that you appear to be involved in the development of the game yourself, which is a conflict of interest that you should have divulged immediately. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely believe that there are substantial articles proving that this game is substantial enough in importance that it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. According to WP:RELIABLE , news organizations can be counted as reliable. References siliconera, browsergamez, techshout, teknolojioku, 07073 are counted as news sites within Google, who don't count a site as a legitimate news site lightly, meaning these sites have been found worthy and have the authority to be counted as news sites. Indiedb and Baixaki also have a lot of references from websites that are counted as legitimate news sites on Google. Also, MonsterMMORPG being listed at IGN, Engadget, Absolute_Games, GameSpot means this game was noteable enough to get their attenion and get added to their websites by staff members. This is important because they don't simply add every game to their listings, especially Indie games. Add to the list onrpg editors as they have a great history with game journalism. Now, looking into Alexa and PageRank, I believe they do matter. Alexa rank is an important aspect to legitimize if a site has authority/is respected or not. If these sites were not an authority on their subject, they would not get the amount of visitors needed to legitimize it as an authority on Alexa. And per the Wikipedia page on PageRank "PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to determine a rough estimate of how important the website is." If properly investigated, I believe that you will find that none of these references are fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for my involvement with MonsterMMORPG, I did not know that I needed to divulge whether or not I played this game as I thought this was a discussion about the merits of MonsterMMORPG and not a closed off back and forth between current Wikipedia editors. Who I am to MonsterMMORPG shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the references are evaluated on their own merits. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which they were. And the implications of a conflict of interest should be straightforward. I suggest reading through the guideline if you may have one. czar ⨹ 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "closed-off debate", you're free to participate, you're just supposed to disclose your connections to the subject too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:Be..anyone delete claim why? Because Be..anyone is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Be..anyone I found that he published an article which has little to no credibility references which makes article definitely does not pass noteability threshold Microsoft_Download_Manager. Even though I did not notice any major problem with categorization, recategorize seems reasonable option when category number is taken into consideration FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Lady Lotus why? Because Lady Lotus is not neutral nor objective with her claim. While quick checking articles written by Lady Lotus I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Beauty_Brands which i strongly believe her own company, has 1 404 returning references and 3 nothing notable references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FanOfNaruto WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you need to keep this discussion about the article in question and not go after articles that editors have worked on. There is no bias. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Its seems the source-hunting has had an opposite effect on me this time - the coverage found so far is extremely weak, with most of it either not meeting standards at WP:RS, or not meeting what's needed to have significant coverage. When these bad sources are stripped away, there's hardly anything left, in sources or source-able content. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Sergecross73 why? Because Sergecross73 is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Sergecross73 I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Danganronpa:_Unlimited_Battle has little to nothing, very thin references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's got to be one of the most bizarre WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments I've come across in my time here at Wikipedia. Even if I did make an a non-notable article (I didn't), I fail to see how that would affect my neutrality with this particular article. (And not that it has any bearing on this article's status, but please see WP:VG/S, you'll see that majority, if not all, of the sources in the article have a consensus for being usable in the capacity that I used them. And there's more that have popped up since then that can be added to the article. So your accusations are both irrelevant and flawed conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Czar pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. The self-promotion and attempts at ref bombing don't help either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:FreeRangeFrog why? Because FreeRangeFrog is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. An example article written by FreeRangeFrog and it has very little to none references Tiefer. According to him/her Tiefer article is noteable while this article is not which clearly displays biased decision FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You cannot point to another article and argue for retention based on that. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jéské Couriano I don't see any other way how to show bias going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs)
The only bias I can see is from the SPA posting rebuttals to every single delete vote which have no basis in Wikipedia's policies while hurling accusations of bias. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Because there is no bias going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disruptive single-purpose account.
  • Strong Keep. To be able to fairly critisize this article I read a lot of pages and other articles. After evaluating backlinks and all claims here, I concluded that this article by far surpasses overall Wikipedia Video Games articles noteability threshold. I agree with Salvidrim! and Knost05. I feel that there is an extreme bias going on at this discussion. It feels like some editors contacting others to vote for delete. Critiques are being made with bias. At the top of this page I am quoting written text "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The bold part clearly shows the bias going on here. I could not resist but to register and make an argument because I can not bear unfairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The article is listed here as part of a general list of Articles for creation submissions that have subsequently been nominated for deletion. That's how I found out about it, though it's important to note that any article going through those processes will be listed there. PS: FanOfNaruto has been indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant promotion, not enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the Silcon Era source is probably the best one of the lot, though that's not really enough. What we really need is significant coverage from general purpose, non-fan based media. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment: Here's a brief runthrough of the sources using Google Translate:
Sources
  1. Silicon Era. SE is a reliable source, but this is an interview which is sort of depreciated as a source. I personally don't think that interviews should necessarily be seen as a SPS unless it's one of those scenarios where the post is a guest post by the developer or where there isn't really any real back and forth with the interviewer. There's enough meat to this in the content before the interview to where I'd consider it usable.
  2. Oyungezer. From what I can see, this does have an editorial staff per this page and the article was written by a staff member, which is a bonus. As far as content goes, the article does give off some PR vibes but ultimately seems to be an overview of the game. I'd consider this usable as a RS.
  3. Haber Import. This comes across strongly like it's taken from a press release, either partially or fully. It's not marked as a press release (these are primary sources and cannot show notability) but it also lacks a clear author and I can't really find anything on the website to show that there's any editorial oversight. There is a page of authors, but nothing to show their credentials or even that they were the author of this piece. I wouldn't count this as a RS.
  4. Game4V. This one is iffy. The page looks nice and it's an outright review, which would be helpful, but I can't find anything on there about editorial oversight. This page does sort of give the impression that they have editors, but none of it is clear. Unfortunately since they don't have that posted, I have to err on the side of caution here and say that it wouldn't be usable offhand unless someone can find something more definitive on the website.
  5. Merlin'in Kazanı. This one is similar to the previous one in that there are things like this that give off the impression that there's an editorial process but no real guarantee that there is one. However that's sort of a moot point here since this post is so brief that it's essentially a WP:TRIVIAL source and not one that would give notability.
  6. Teknoloji Oku. This has the same issue with verifying the editorial oversight. This is really what does in most websites. Even if it looks fairly obvious that the page has an editorial board, it has to be verified. Sometimes this can be bypassed if the site is especially well known but this is kind of what harms a lot of foreign language websites- they're usually not known on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should accept the websites based on the fact that there is a language bias on Wikipedia, just that this can be a barrier for finding sources.
  7. Engadget. The site is a RS, but this is an interview. It's mostly filled with responses by the developer, so this runs a little afoul of the whole SPS. Personally I do find interviews to be an indication of notability, but I don't think that they should be the only sources.
Ultimately what we have here are three usable sources: Engadget, Silicon Era, and Oyungezer. Two of them are interviews and Oyungezer is a little iffy since it looks to be somewhat based on a press release and doesn't appear to be a review of the game itself per se. It's enough to where I can see arguments for a weak keep, but it really should have more/better sourcing than this if it is kept- otherwise it will likely get challenged and nominated for deletion again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've posted this response two other places, but I wanted to make sure it was seen by the people in this discussion as well. My relation to the game is that I'm a Chat Master for it's chat function and I play the game. I wasn't asked to create an account to argue this point I was asked to go and fix it up as the person that created it did a pretty poor job. When I went to the page to edit it I saw the Delete Nomination at which point I weighed in. I didn't think I needed to state my direct relation to the game, but after reading Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) explanation I understand why this might have been of importance.

'I would like to apologize for my role in the back and forth of it all, but I do stand by my opinion. I believe that this game is getting railroaded when it has a legitimate reason to be added to English Wikipedia. When looking at some other games, as the much more aggressive/unprofessional user added under me, it seems your editors aren't as strict.

'Either way, I understand that as it is the page is lacking, but it does have some articles that would count as references and I hope the page gets a weak keep at the very least so that I have an opportunity to edit it and get it up to snuff.

'Thanks for your time, Knost05 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING. The Superonline Iletisim Hizmetleri user 176.233.41.152 has been energetically canvassing people to come here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got an invitation by some ip person to come here as a neutral party. I am a bit puzzled by a comment user @Woodrar made. "The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles." May I ask how you would know whether a writer's byline was indeed his true birth given name or a psuedonym? Thanks if you get a moment to answer that. Until then, Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't know for sure, but usually you can take a pretty good guess based on what the name is. If the person writes by the name of "Don Johnson" and/or is known outside of the website by such a name, then its likely their name. If they go by "Doombringer1987", you make a pretty good guess that's not they're real name. Many video game and music websites allow any old person to create an account with any old name and let them write whatever they want. This sort of content fails WP:USERG - it's not considered a reliable sources in the Wikipedia context, and thus, is not usable to prove the notability of a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was canvassed to look here by the IP user too. Looking at this discussion, I'd like to point out that Delete and Keep aren't the only options, Move to Draft space is a valid alternative - and judging by the knife edge the sources are walking - this would seem the better solution for this article. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed by new user (assuming same IP entity), I agree with the above statement that it should be moved out of the mainspace and put in the draft namespace. ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has enough references, is not orphan, instead of being loosing the time, you should be improving this article.--P2prules (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out with sources you find to be both reliable and cover the subject in significant detail? Also, not being an orphan is hardly a testament to being notable. Virtually any article can linked to if you try hard enough, notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vampirelord1985 canvassed me too, apparently expecting a reliable Keep !vote based upon my "experience, review and edit history of video game articles". But unbeknownst to him I hate vampire fiction and collectible card-games. So, nuke it. ...What? Those aren't valid reasons? Well, OK. Let's go with WP:ADMASQ. Good old reliable ADMASQ. Pax 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed I too was just canvassed on this, based on the sender's belief that "you are a true editor of Wikipedia who works to expand it instead of shrinking"... which is a frankly not the most likely claim to make about my editing history, but does make it clear which way the canvassing is pulling. This discussion should be weighed with such canvassing attempts in mind. (I am not casting any !vote on the article myself; I have not reviewed it and have other things to do with my day.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got canvassed, too. I don't really have a problem with sending it to draft space, but I'm a bit worried that it might end up turning into massive drama like Heaven Sent Gaming (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming). If people are willing to put up with the SPAs, promotional edits, and other drama again, go for it. Unless Jimbo puts me on the Wikimedia payroll, I'm unlikely to babysit the article, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When/If this is moved to draft may I start adding to it and cleaning it up? Thank you for your time everyone, I'm sorry some have made this a less than easy discussion.Knost05 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knost05, you should start cleaning it up now; if the article really can be salvaged (I'm still hedging my bets) then it should be improved before the AfD closes. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Of course, I'll get on it as soon as possible. Thank you again everyone for your time and patience. Knost05 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed. :l By the IP listed above. However, I don't exactly see any reason to delete the article, so... Weak Keep? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, this (possible sock-puppeteer) canvasser is starting to grind my gears. Speedy Delete per G11. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I was notified about this by the mad canvasser, I see no reason not to offer neutral input.
The Siliconera bit is good, as listed at WP:VG/RS, which says that its "Interviews can be used in any article"; and Engadget is also listed as an RS. That's two good sources (although they're both interviews, which makes me a little hesitant, but not enough to change my !vote), and I unfortunately don't know Turkish to be able to do anything more than speculate based on the structure of the rest. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Supernerd11. Between the Silicon era piece which is listed at WP:VG/RS, and also the Engadget one that is also listed there, this article subject has significant coverage over multiple sources, and has crossed the threshold of WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The canvassing issue aside, there appears to be substantial enough coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was canvassed to keep this, however looking at the sources and reading through our guidelines and polies about this topic, I don't belive this surpasses our notability guidelines. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources cited are not reliable and there is not enough third-party coverage to meet the General notability guideline. - tucoxn\talk 06:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed Perhaps there could be reason to keep this article, but I'm not yet seeing it. What I do see is very little actual content spread into many subsections, which is definitely not warranted. The biggest argument I could see for deletion is that the citations are very weak. There are a couple decent ones, but at least two (teknolojioku.com and haberimport.com) are clearly just press releases, as they are identical content. Like many others, I don't believe it passes notability yet. Jory (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space - Despite the article have 2 reliable sources, it is not enough to meet the "receive significant coverage" criteria. However, I believed that if the page creator work hard enough and find more reliable sources for it, the article will be ready some day. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 2 reliable sources fulfill the actual requirement of notability, it is debatable what to keep or not. Delibzr (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (I wasn't canvassed :) ) - I agree completely with Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources and find that amount of sourcing puts it right on the edge of notability. Additionally, I am inclined to error on the side of keep due to the game's large user base (as reported in Silicon Era, a reliable source). Yes, popularity is not a notability criteria, but when if tough cases we can employ common sense to decide which side to land on, and common sense says a popular game should be notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WPVG rated Siliconera as having situational reliability—it's a niche blog that we only use for English coverage of Japanese games. Of course, this is an interview, so it's somewhat in-between that and a self-published source. The three sources in question are indeed secondary, but can they be used for notability? The two main English sources are interviews unregulated by a fact-checking or editorial mechanism. czar ⨹ 12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interviews by reliable sources can contribute to notability. While not strictly secondary, they aren't strictly primary either - some level of fact-checking of things said in the interview will occur at quality publications. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (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.

April 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matei edit

AfDs for this article:
Mike Matei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was an article under this name many years ago that was deleted. Assuming this is the same person, he has certainly become much more notable since then, but it is still not clear that notability has been established. This was suggested as a ProD and was rejected after having been endorsed by a second editor (neither of whom was me), and I feel that it should go to full AfD to settle the matter. It seems to me that WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER are not satisfied (except perhaps criterion 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER), and general notability criteria are probably not established either. It looks to me like all the references in the current article that would establish his notability apart from Cinemassacre Productions and their various "programs" are in non-notable sources. WP:TOOSOON at best. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect though I'm not sure which is the best target. The name is certainly a searchable term, but as noted, non-notable on his own and tied to Rolfe/AVGN/Cinemassacre. I just don't know which of those is the best target for this, likely Rolfe. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of notable. TEH (talk • contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions (where he works and is mentioned in the lede by name) as a worthwhile search term. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—not enough to substantiate an article but redirects are cheap. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions per Masem and Czar's comments. 23W 01:23, 16 April 2015 (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.

April 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James & Mike Mondays edit

James & Mike Mondays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was nominated for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag because I didn't think that it fit the criteria and it deserved to go to a full AfD debate. The few references provided for the article are all in non-notable sources. Personally, I think this show is non-notable outside of Cinemassacre Productions and it should perhaps just be merged in as a subsection there if it is not deleted outright. Note also that there is an (unreferenced) "List of James & Mike Mondays episodes" article as well. Also note that this has been mentioned on their website [1], so there is likely to be an influx of fans commenting here (as can currently be seen on the article's Talk page). Bueller 007 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Non-notable Web content. Fails to provide non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article you referred to has no bearing on this page. Please provide a Wikipedia valid argument to support the deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (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.
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. The "weak keep" opinions are weak indeed, and one of them ultimately supports deletion.  Sandstein  20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge and Hampshire edit

Lozenge and Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Google doesn't bring up any third-party sources, has not been mentioned in any relevant video game news outlet. Soetermans. T / C 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep-Could use some improvement. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping? Unless WP:RS significant coverage can be found, there is nothing to improve.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since no video game sources confirm the game's existence. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm interested in Hampshire related articles but, not... this... I'm going to find some primary sources for this as this seems salvagable. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What it needs is secondary source coverage (?) to show what unaffiliated sources think of the topic, not primary sources, which will, of course, always exist. czar ⨹ 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a somewhat descriptive entry for MobyGames for one of the series' games I know MobyGames is unreliable as it relies on user-submitted content, but that was the only decent description I could find. The game looks pretty awful for December 2000. What I don't understand is that it's a fairly contemporary game series and there are almost no sources for it. I've seen other black holes for some games on the internet but a search from the VG custom search engine finds nothing on the series. Somebody asked what happened to Lozenge and Hampshire but I can see why this is up for deletion if there are no sources. I don't think this is salvagable, so sadly I would support a deletion unless something comes up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2015 (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.

April 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Consensus seems to be the contant is notable but its not so cut and dried that this needs a standalone article. I'd suggest a merge proposal would be a better vehicle then AFD to decide that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Knight edit

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

Character is a non-notable secondary character of a single-game indie series. I suggest either deletion or redirection to Shovel Knight. Pyrotle {T/C} 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not seeing a lack of non-notability here - secondary sources specifically discussing the character beyond just a gameplay element is exactly what we want to see to pass the GNG. That doesn't mean we necessarily need the separate article and merging what's here to Shovel Knight would be a possible suggestion, but definitely not deletion. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent sources are used to describe the character's conception and reception, and integrating those (or even just the conception and creation-section) into the Shovel Knight article would make that article focus on her character in too much integrate detail. ~Mable (chat) 05:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has 7 different secondary sources and 2 of which are reliable in the field, only source primary is the kick starter page itself but that is pretty minor in the makeup of the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shovel Knight. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The article, as written, is a series of passing mentions strung together (more on this in a moment). There are no sources of substance to add from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The character has no out-of-universe significance and is discussed as an element of gameplay. The only articles that treat the topic as its own subject are [2] and [3], both short and about the related update. The other articles are a collection of passing mentions about the character. There's certainly enough to explain the character in the parent article, but not nearly enough coverage to warrant its own article. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2015 (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.
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 redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games . j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix & Friends edit

Asterix & Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable enough. Can't find lots of reliable sources for this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or redirect it to Asterix or its developer Sproing Interactive Media. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (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.
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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOTgreal edit

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

A video game engine that seems to have little notability and the article has been tagged for notability for 7 years now. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may or may not be notable, but "not having been improved for 7 years" is not a reason for deletion -- and neither is being "defunct" DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True that isn't a reason for a afd-but I was trying to think of something to say beyond not being notable, but yes I do agree being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2015 (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.
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. North America1000 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Networks edit

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

Company with no evidence of notability, a Google search doesn't come up with anything either. All sources appear to be self-published. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self promotion. Huddsblue (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides no Google hits, the company was purportedly founded from scratch within the last five days so notability would be unlikely. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, with a bit of terrible branding to boot (suffice to say, "Aryan" has a bit of baggage on it in the West). Nate • (chatter) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly self promotion, They can go self promote elsewhere. –Davey2010Talk 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2015 (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.

April 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 speedy redirect to List of Pokémon (650–720). SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanion (Pokémon) edit

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

Non-notable, run of the mill Pokemon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect and wondering why I didn't think of that...(embarassed). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to some "list of..." type article, whatever is out there that fits. The Wikipedia is not a Pokedex, esp for subjects that have no received direct coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the applicable list of Pokémon. Zero sources to establish notability. ~Mable (chat) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Pokémon (650–720) where it should be added as #721. Probably could have done this yourself with little fanfare before coming to AfD. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—enough for a listing but not enough to support a fully-featured article. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 18:07, 9 April 2015 (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.
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 redirect to console exclusivity. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit

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

Sometimes, the right answer is to bite the newbie and delete the article. When the original content was seemingly written by a petulant child, the wrong answer is to try and polish it. This article is essentially a POV-fork to console exclusivity and should just be deleted and redirected.

"Paid exclusivity" is not a term used anywhere but in forums populated by gamers with no understanding of business, which is why the earliest example cited dates from only 2007. In media where the most vocal aren't petulant children, people generally understand that you have to pay for exclusivity agreements, so "paid exclusivity" is not a term used when discussing things like sports rights. No one is going to search for "paid exclusivity" to look for anything other than video games. - hahnchen 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Gene that there is some content here that could go nicely in Console exclusivity. "Paid exclusivity" when not focused on just consoles is too broad of a concept. it could contain everything from intellectual properties to tariffs. What this article is really about is Console exclusivity ( which doesn't have a section for paid exclusivity so it would make the article better for the reader ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 12 April 2015 (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.

March 31 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Nakon 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2K (Mobile Game) edit

WWE 2K (Mobile Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As an article that says nothing about this game other than its release date, price and key features it is spam. Most of it is based upon a press release published by the WWE site (as licencee, not independent), the remainder being two brief announcements in gaming websites that do not themselves appear to be notable, so notability is not established. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. No sources to show notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge – Currently the only coverage from secondary source game websites is the press release announcement stuff. For now, I would suggest redirecting to WWE 2K per WP:TOOSOON. It might expand enough in the future to split off into a separate article again. Also this article needs renaming, "G" shouldn't be capitalised in "Game". – The1337gamer (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge - It is a notable video game. The editor just didn't use the notable source. See this one from GameSpot and VideoGamer.com. Notability is definitely established. However, its problems is that it violates copyright as the entire gameplay section is copy from WWE.com directly. Now that it is removed, I agree with The1337gamer's point. It is too soon to have the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the original copyrighted text was re-inserted by the original author including the pricing info - removed again but I suspect it will be put back.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (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.

March 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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.  Sandstein  19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards world edit

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this game, and article is little more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Could be the case that references are in Russian, but I couldn't find any. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (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.

March 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 merge to BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Nakon 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Game Publishing edit

Infinite Game Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

just a publisher, but they are not the original publisher of any of the three items listed. , just a subsequent owner of the rights who no longer holds them DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Eh, I'm sympathetic because the game has plenty of mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but none of the articles are in depth about the actual company and almost all of the remaining mentions are about IGP's relation with the MechWarrior franchise. It would seem, then, that IGP would work well integrated into a larger MechWarrior series article, which does not exist. The next best spot would be the aforementioned target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (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.
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. North America1000 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbling Cat edit

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

No evidence of notability. The article was created to promote Potions: A Curious Tale, a non-notable game. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in use are not reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. RikuKat's attempt is appreciated morally here, but a business registration (not in-depth by nature, only proves existence) and a link to a non-notable previous project by one of the founders is far from satisfying the notability requirements. It is unsurprisingly hard to establish notability when the company's only product listed in the article has still not confirmed its release date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah AirMech is okay (in notability), but still notability is not inherited just by sharing common key people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (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.
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. Michig (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potions: A Curious Tale edit

Potions: A Curious Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've been looking forward to this game, why delete the entry only to put it back when it goes live? - dennisandvicki, 02:02, 31 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisandvicki (talk • contribs)
  • Delete No references. Not enough people have heard of it. Possible self-promotion, because only the creator(s) and their friends have likely played this game. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References exist. Credible claim of significance, has following of several hundred people. User_talk:RikuKat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Youtube, forums, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Psychotic Spartan 123 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Evryware. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dude edit

AfDs for this article:
Space Dude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, no good sourcing found. Previously kept in 2006 due to notability of developer but I'm not finding anything useful. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete when your parent article ( in this case the game developer ) is a stub, it's unlikely that the child article (the game) is going to be notable. put the content into the developer article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:50, 3 April 2015 (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.
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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea (video game) edit

Dead Sea (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to have its own article. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Not notable, I thought this was a different game at first when I saw the deletion (don't know which I was thinking of) and was going to say keep but this is not it. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tech in Asia's editorial policy says that every article is run past an editor, though they also want to break stories within minutes, so it's unclear what degree of oversight is had. I'd say it's gray in the reliability department, but I'm leaning towards okay since their work is cited by their video game reporting peers. The rest are more clear-cut: compgamer appears to have a print presence but I can't find mention of it in English video game reliable sources, coregamerth appears amateur, and Juropy doesn't have an editorial policy. I still don't see enough to qualify a dedicated article for this topic. czar ⨹ 08:50, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Melissa Batten edit

Joseph and Melissa Batten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable domestic violence (murder-suicide) case involving non-notable persons. No significant coverage beyond local news, no legal precedents. Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. I also find it bizarre that the murderer and his victim are given a joint biography. - hahnchen 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or move back to Draft. Most commonly, I work on articles about and related to games. So when I found this interesting story, I was floored. Is it notable to have a murder within the gaming industry? I don't know, but I have never heard of a game designer killing another game designer. The Battens themselves may or may not be notable, but they have both worked on some pretty notable projects. I did not think that separate articles, or even an article on either individual, made much sense so I wrote one for both. The murder itself seems to have plenty of coverage, both from the local news and sources like Fortune, Kotaku and The Escapist, as well as the print source Designers & Dragons (which describes the crime as "one of the more shocking events in RPG's history") where I first learned of this case. There were a bunch of blogs on my Google search, which I did not use, and I did not know if I should use Whatifgaming even though it had an interview from her work on Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This article in its current state is not my best work, I will grant you that, but I have never started an article on a crime before. I first posted to the WP:VG talk page for advice, and got responses from GamerPro64, Jeraphine Gryphon, Izno, Czar, 1bandsaw, Fakedeeps, and Salvidrim!, some of whom also did some minor edits to the article. I could solve the "bizarre" joint biography by splitting them into two sections, but I was not sure if that was necessary. I was also unsure of what the article's name should be, so that could be changed by anyone with a better idea than me. I was also unsure of what exactly to do with the lead. BOZ (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources appear to me to be more than just local news. 1bandsaw (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing remarkable about this incident. Husband kills wife then tops self. Happens somewhere every day. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BOZ. The article's title and content can be adjusted, but the event/people have been covered by different reliable sources so there's enough content to base an article on. Also I found these additional sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?_r=0 and http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26163179.html (Komo News) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it could make a wikinews article since it is news, but the point of an encyclopedia is that you take a ton of different sources and compile them to create an encyclopedic narrative. Someone Googling this will get the same story from Wikipedia or any news article, I don't think the topic is broad enough that combining multiple sources will create anything more than is already there. Wikinews yes, Wikipedia I don't think so. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage is a bit light, but it's still there. The crime was highlighted by The New York Times in an article about murder-suicides related to domestic violence, and they specifically mentioned that it "made headlines". This seems to be an implicit statement of notability on their part. I can see how people would argue that it's perhaps more applicable to Wikinews, but I think it squeaks by the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agree with opening (hahnch). Notability is questionable here; but the point is that victims of this domestic violence and their lives were not so domestic. Again, agree over joint biography goof - titles and POV should be different. However, if the event has been covered by significant sources and had notable impact on relevant communities - it might be legible as article. I recommend search and presentation of sources noting enduring effects; or incorporation of information into appropriate (possibly to be created) article, timeline or list. Fakedeeps (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covers barely WP:CRIME and WP:GNG but still it is within the treshold for inclusion. That is my view.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The situation was highlighted by the NYtimes as a case where gun control laws overshadow rights of victims of domestic victims (in 2013), and was cited by a WA state legislator in the passage of a 2014 state gun control law that involved domestic violence [11]. (in addition to the above aspects). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Despite the NYTimes and Fortune sources above, I'm reiterating my stance in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'd expect significantly more coverage of a news event for it to be considered in an encyclopedia, I'd expect national sources to dedicate articles to the crime, not have a few paragraph on it half-way down on a page filled with other murders. Had it been a cultural object, such as a video game, we'd expect previews, reviews and interviews in national-level publications - we have none of this here. - hahnchen 21:54, 31 March 2015 (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.

March 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game) edit

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently minor clone of last year's 2048 (video game), released a few days ago. The first version of the article was full of bold claims ("described by the Wall Street Journal as 'almost like Candy Crush for math geeks'") which actually applied to the original 2014 game, while studiously avoiding any mention of it. Minus those claims, we have that it might have featured in the second-place entry in a programming forum competition (unless that's also talking about the original yes, it looks like that was just lifted from the original 2048 article as well). Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just one of hundreds of unremarkable clones of 2048, and doesn't even have a single secondary source. --McGeddon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shit sorry assumed this was a "special edition" .. Haden't realized it was just a clone, DERP I'm losing the plot I think!, Anyway we don't need articles on every single clone of a game, I can't find bugger all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ugh. There are countless forks of the game. Probably hundreds referred to as 'galaxy edition' alone. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not even sure if a redirect is needed. 2048/Threes are one of those overly cloned games on the cheap. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would normally recommend merge for these sorts of things, but a merge would not be worthwhile as there is not a single source in a WP:VG/RS search to confirm even the most trivial of noteworthy relations to the full game. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Clearly fails WP:GNG, no content to merge and no reason to redirect to 2048. It's just one of hundreds of clones. – The1337gamer (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable clone. A notable original doesn't give inherited notability, and as many above has shown there is next to no grounds to stand on itself too. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:02, 26 March 2015 (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.

March 22 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaiMai edit

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently the article's subject is notable, and there are now a couple of sources. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those 70 footnotes are reliable? Does the zhwp's DYK process include source vetting? Otherwise I don't see why those arguments are pertinent. czar ⨹ 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two hits from WP:VG/RS: [15], [16]. Not sure if [17] is more than a press release, but it's reliable. Imagine there's plenty more in Japanese sources here. czar ⨹ 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be 4Gamer's own report at a SEGA trade show. IIRC 4Gamer put a red notice at the top for full PR reposts (like this one), and a grey frame around the repost parts if they supply their own lead (like this one). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:27, 23 March 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsterball (video game) edit

Hamsterball (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of current condition, burden is on the nominator to look for sources before coming to AfD. Indeed there's nothing on the Raptisoft game, but there's enough on the TikGames game—reviews in three major video game publications: IGN, Eurogamer, and Play (UK magazine) (see the Metacritic listing). So we're looking at repurposing and dropping the disambig after this closes. Those reviews are enough, but there are a few other small articles in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 12:17, 29 March 2015 (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.
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. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Eggy That Could edit

The Little Eggy That Could (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this video game. bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are user-editable sites and company PR, not WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (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.

March 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. clear consensus. "What's the harm if kept" isn't an accepted argument here. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Middleton edit

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

Fails GNG and NBIO with only reliable source being the BBC article. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 201reser 5 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't know what GNG/NBIO are, but what is the harm if this article is preserved? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, the acronyms refer to Wikipedia's General notability guideline and Notability (people). I suggest you read them carefully. They are the basis on which it will be decided whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "What is the harm?" is one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore: In real life I know not to drive on the wrong side of the street without having to read reams text. Your miles may vary, but in my book any policies/guidelines that take weeks to fully understand cannot be effectively enforced.
Also, just because someone does not know all the acronyms used at Wikipeida by heart does not make them less worthy of an opinion. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, it takes some time to learn the rules/policies of the website, and I typically recommend that editors/nominators link to them in their comments so people can read up on what they're trying to say, but that being said, you not knowing them isn't really a good rationale or defense for your stance either. That's like threatening to sue someone, and when they ask you what law they broke, and you saying "Well, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't typically need to be in my daily life." I don't mean to be mean here, but you're they one who made the initial statement without the prior knowledge here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While other commenters have provided more compelling deletion reasons, I am inclined to reprimand User:Konveyor Belt for pulling WP:JUSTAPOLICY and hope he does better next time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an absence of significant, in-depth biographical coverage in reliable sources. The current source is a three-sentence item in the BBC local news for Northampton. (Middleton comes from there.) The claim to have won a Kids' Choice Award is spurious and I have removed it from the article. The game he makes his own YouTube videos about, Minecraft, was nominated 3 times, but so far has not won, and in any case, the notability of the game does not confer notability on a person who makes videos about it. There is also an interview in The Big Issue here and a brief mention of his videos in an article about the game itself and several others who make videos about it on Tech Times here + some press-released based notices about his signing a deal with Maker Studios, a company which produces YouTube videos. Not enough for a stand-alone article in my view. What little verifiable information about him is available can be merged into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lake of notability. Agree with suggestion to merge a brief mention into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as suggested above. The harm is that people will begin to treat Wikipedia as a web-host for putting everybody and everything trivial they know on our servers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is more harm than good being done here. This will set a dangerous president. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coming via WT:VG is my quick addition of sources I see and absence of a vote. It has to be said though, that I have not heard of this person before in my personal YouTube experience. [18] from The Guardian regarding his standalone app. And is TubeFilter still considered unreliable? Their stats puts Middleton in 4th among gaming channels one time. [19] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Agree with others saying delete. DangerousJXD (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Possibly reliable sources offering significant coverage of him: The Guardian, StreamDaily, Common Sense Media, TubeFilter. Tezero (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldnt call the CSM one significant. It's a few sentences on a top ten list. It's literally 1/10th of an article about him ... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 28 March 2015 (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.

March 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skull & Crossbones edit

Skull & Crossbones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. 1980s video games often are more thoroughly sources in print media than in content currently searchable online. The reliability of the International Arcade Museum's Killer List of Video Games is debatable, but this has an entry there. This German-language book mentions it at least briefly, as does this Russian book about video game sound effects. I'm not really qualified to evaluate either work. Beyond that, additional coverage in Coin Slot Magazine (for the arcade version) and any of several periodicals covering NES gaming seems plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fixed the mobygames link to the page, added the arcade cabinet manual (on archive.org), and I was able to find a few sources of varying quality online if someone would like to put it into the page: Reviews: [20][21] [22] [23] Other stuff: [24] ― Padenton|✉   01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability check—Source 1, Atari Times, is patently unreliable, user-submitted. Source 2, The Video Game Critic, is self-published and has been deemed unreliable. Source 3, Honestgamers, is similarly part-time and has no fact-checking editorial policy. Source 4 is an official listing for a print magazine, so okay. And Source 5, a Gamasutra feature, is of course okay, though the subject only has a blurb. czar ⨹ 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-I actually use to own a copy I found but since it didn't work...anyway it is notable even if obscure. Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harder to find sources for games of this age, but there are plenty of reviews (via Amiga mag rack) for the C64/Amiga ports of the game. More than enough there in those print sources to suffice for the general notability guideline and to build suitable gameplay and reception sections. czar ⨹ 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2015 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles edit

List of Humble Bundles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry, but I'm not buying the arguments here. The fact it has "significantly more information than the article" is a bad thing, because there is way too much detail here. The page is enormous, many of the games aren't notable, the article itself is woefully sourced, and WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTCRUFT seem to come into play. I see no value whatsoever in having a generic list of every Humble Bundle ever. What next? A list of every Steam Sale ever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Masem. While there are some definite problems with the list as-is, I think we need to come to a conclusion on how to incorporate the noteworthy discussion of early humble bundles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukeno94. Given the frequency of humble bundles, I just don't see this list being maintainable and a lot of these bundles aren't noteworthy. Any bundle that received significant coverage can be be covered in the Humble Bundle article. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I recognize the delete !votes and their arguments but I think it would be a shame to full-on delete the article. There may also be a more maintainable version (I'm skeptical) that someone light bulbs on if it is kept. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What good would userfying this do? Also, how would any form of this list be valid? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some information that should be reflected back into the main article if this is deleted - obviously not the whole list, but, for example, the first 10-some numbered bundles, that were bringing in millions in revenue, could be documented as example of the success. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the pretty easy retort to the first question WP:USERFY (c.f. the last sentence of the first paragraph)? Besides, you wouldn't be able to stop him from asking an admin to userfy it for him should the decision here be to delete the article, anyway. My !vote just skips that (WP:BURO) step.

    Maybe Masem finds some way to strip down the list such that it becomes maintainable while also passing WP:NOT, which is the only policy that I can conceive of the article today failing.

    An alternative location might be the Draft namespace. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article does serve a distinct purspose compared to the parent. I agree that the article has way too much information on it, though. It may be sufficient to remove the list of games from each bundle? That should still give a good overview of the salient data points without overloading the reader. Alexbrainbox (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entire argument falls apart when you consider that they shouldn't be included in full in the main article, as most of the bundles are entirely non-notable. Routine coverage of a bundle is, well, routine, and doesn't constitute notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we have an exhaustive list of every Steam sale? No, no we wouldn't. This is exactly the same as that would be, just on a bigger scale. The fact that this would be insanely excessive detail in the main article does NOT justify the existence of this list. HBs, for the most part, have been extremely regular for a long time; this list does not serve any real purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t)
  • OK so you're saying the article may need trimming due to technical or other reasons? That I can accept. However, this is an AfD: what is being debated is the existence of the article. So the size is not directly relevant to this discussion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look indiscriminate according to Wiktionary "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." How can a very precise list, carefully and exactly constructed, with no margin for argument, be indiscriminate? I'm convinced you're using the wrong word. Maybe you mean "I find it uninteresting"? In no way is it indiscriminate. However, I feel I might be wasting my time arguing this point any further. But please look at some dictionaries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK so Masem thinks there is too much detail, and The1337gamer thinks there is too little, I think it's about right. Where is the correct place to discuss this? On the article talk page. Not at AfD really, lets not count chickens until they're hatched. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [25]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they ought to be. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense means that we give them proper things to read, not a messy list that manages to be overly detailed and incomplete at the same time. Page views are meaningless; a page on SkyDoesMinecraft would get a huge amount of views, and yet he doesn't meet notability guidelines/doesn't have an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (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.

March 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 speedy delete WP:G12: copyvio from http://apkmanager.com/apk/rs.ignite.lighton czar ⨹ 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LightON ~ enlight the enigma edit

LightON ~ enlight the enigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game; fails WP:GNG; very little coverage. Game developer has no article, so merging isn't an option. Esquivalience t 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the page about lightON game to improve it's visibility in the web search. The content that I included is basic, but currently there's not much more to include. I hope the game will become notable some day, so let's give it a chance. Amilosavljevic77 07:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as promotional, as stated above. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the entire text of the body is a copyvio from [26] --PresN 18:38, 17 March 2015 (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.

March 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Fox cast members edit

List of Star Fox cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability by itself, voice actors for notable characters are already mentioned at List of Star Fox characters. Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (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.

March 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Valley2city‽ 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jocuri-unity3d.com edit

Jocuri-unity3d.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable web. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Should have been speedied a LONG time ago. smileguy91Need to talk? 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (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.

March 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. JodyB talk 13:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Game Studios edit

Valhalla Game Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should have been speedily deleted for no indication of significance. However an IP (likely just the original author logged out) contested the speedy for the following reason: 218 results on google news in English, 303 results in Japanese . 60 employees according to the official website. As we know, that statement isn't enough to establish WP:N, but technically since it was contested by "another user" we will have to go through AfD. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that the subject of this article satisfies the basic notability criteria. Notability is not inherited by one of its employees being independently notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree they don't inherit notability from their notable co-founder, but they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with regard to their development of Devil's Third which was missing from the article. I've added that to the article along with instances of significant coverage. Sure, much of that still relates to the co-founder's previous work but the company has confirmed contracts with Nintendo and their game was announced at E3 last year. There's probably enough there for me, but I totally understand the nomination here. St★lwart111 08:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for giving us some additional background info, while this company may become notable, I still think this isWP:TOOSOON, what we have is a fledgling company with some notable people trying to release a quality video game. However, to date they have failed to release a single game, and they also failed to release Devil's Third for PS3 and XBOX 360 as originally planned and have now scaled it back to a Nintendo only release, which may more may not come to fruition, and even if it is released may could just be a flop. That being said, the only thing going here is that there does appear to be some coverage in reliable sources, but is it enough to be considered extensive? -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was founded in 2009, so it's hardly a "fledgling company". Ha ha. Yes, the plan was to release it for PS3 and Xbox 360 but they didn't "fail" at that attempt - partner company THQ (the PS3/Xbox link) went belly-up and Valhalla went to Nintendo who signed them that day, after a single meeting, sight-unseen. But you're right - none of that really matters - the issue is whether reliable sources have given the company significant coverage. I think they have, but I won't hold anyone's feet to the fire. St★lwart111 05:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the game without a doubt has more than enough coverage, the problem is does the company? Try finding a single source about Valhalla that isn't just talking about the release of that game with a mention as to Valhalla as the creator. I guess I could see the argument that at this time, that game is what defines the company and any source talking about the game could also be considered "extensive coverage" for the studio, I guess I'm on the fence about it now. I'll wait and see what others have to say that might sway me one direction or the other, but my mind is more open to keeping this article than it was before. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reasonable of you; your analysis is pretty spot on. St★lwart111 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the person who reinstated the article and I'm not the author of the original article. Nice insinuating there though - if you know you're on unsteady grounds, focus less on facts and instead attempt smear tacticts. The fact that Valhalla have been around for 6 years and have received a lot of coverage in both Japanese and English tells me they are bigger than their founder. They/their games have been mentionde in Famitsu a bunch of times, I get 76 googits for site:famitsu.com "ヴァルハラゲームスタジオ". To claim they're not notable seems ridiculous.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There's a misunderstanding here, btw. I didn't contend the speedy deletion, I restored an old version of the page which had a "speedy deletion" tag (and was subsequently made a redirect to one of the foudners). When I realized I had included the tag by mistake, I made a 2nd edit to remove it.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First of all I said "likely the original author" not "definitely the original author." There's a big difference, and anyone looking at the edit history can see why I might reasonably suspect that. Second, I would be more inclined to believe you if multiple socks hadn't already edited the page and caused an admin to semi-protect it, and then the first IP (you) to edit the article after the protection expired reverts the community consensus redirect and puts back all the old info that was repeatedly nominated for speedy/changed into a redirect by several other editors and admins. Finally, your first contributions to Wikipedia were to undo a redirect, and include and edit summary on Valhalla Game Studios? Obviously this is not the first time you've edited on Wikipedia. So instead of continued edit warring in the article that has happened historically I brought it to AfD where a conclusive consensus could be reached by the community, there is no reason for you to take offense to it. If you bothered to read the previous comments in the AfD you would see that I have changed my view and think they article may be worth keeping. Although I still have some WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON concerns, either way, there is no reason for you to come here and attack my nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough coverage to justify an article, as several aspects of the company have been covered by many sources. (Itagaki's leaving his prior company to start this one up, the problems with THQ's closure, Nintendo working with the company to save one of its projects, etc. The company may not have any game output, but they've certainly been through a lot, and it's been documented by third party reliable sources. There's enough to write an article here, it just needs a lot of cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 18 March 2015 (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.

March 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rally-Sport MS-DOS edit

Rally-Sport MS-DOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability, not covered by enough reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There maybe some old computer mags that reviewed this game that might give it some notability. However if this game had any lasting significance you would think there would be a least some sources online beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (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.
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. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Games edit

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

WP:Notability. Only told readers that the game exists and didn't add any information about the game's notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2015 (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.
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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Lian Zhan Shi edit

Qing Lian Zhan Shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability. Not covered by any reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looking around for other sources "Honest and Upright Warrior" and "Qinglian Zhanshi" also turn up some results, but still not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename "Incorruptible Warrior", its English title (after the AfD ends). A sampling from LexisNexis:
  • "China puts faith in video game to spread anti-corruption message." The Irish Times. August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Cyberspace opens new front in war on graft." South China Morning Post. August 1, 2007 Wednesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese whistleblowers rush to expose corruption." The Irish Times. December 20, 2007 Thursday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese hunt corrupt officials - by computer." The Daily Telegraph (LONDON). August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "China's first anti-corruption online game shut down after less than a month." BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring. August 28, 2007 Tuesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
which are all about the game, in depth. Ping me if you need to see them as a PDF. There are more sources on LexisNexis, too. This also doesn't include the WSJ and Reuters articles currently referenced in the WP article:
All in all, should be more than enough to establish notability and to write a sizable article. czar ⨹ 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki is sourced.Antigng (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2015 (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.
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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wispin edit

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

WP:Notability, does not receive coverage from reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar ⨹ 15:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Six reviews on Metacritic. I'd say that anything that gets that much attention on Metacritic is notable. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic actually does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar ⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Move Would make alot more sense to start an article on the developer, Grumpyface Studios and have this be a section of it. This current one could redirect there then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This game has enough sources to meet the general notability guideline and warrant its own article separate from the developer (which appears to only have passing mentions in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search). This is to say that this game is more notable than its developers. czar ⨹ 18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game has only passing mentions at the references listed and a few reviews. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews from WP:VG/RS vetted sources (as mentioned above) have been the precedent for sufficiency. czar ⨹ 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (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.
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. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XSquare edit

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

WP:Notability, not covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (for any version of the app, including "Kids" and "Infinity"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 15:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't see anything, either. As far as I can tell, it hasn't gotten any professional reviews in reliable sources. Google results seem to consist nothing but spammy download sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Carnaval edit

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

WP:NOTABILITY, not covered by reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A quick news search brings up some sources of which it's the main topic, but I don't believe that there's significant coverage and thus it fails WP:GNG. Pishcal — ♣ 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer, Slide to Play, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar ⨹ 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eight reviews on Metacritic. That basically means notability is assured. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it's worth noting that Metacritic does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar ⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (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.
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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Plumo edit

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

Not notable and don't have any "significant" coverage. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (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.

March 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Pokémon#Fan community . Overall, there is consensus that Bulbapedia is not notable enough for an article. A selective merge has already been performed and there is a rough consensus to redirect/merge to that location anyways. As such, I'll redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbapedia edit

AfDs for this article:
Bulbapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this website. Almost entirely sourced by the website itself. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for the mess earlier which I've now fixed - Technically "3" is incorrect as it should be "3rd nomination" but the prev AFD was in 2005 hence prev being "2" and I'd rather not flaff around with historical stuff like that so figured it was best I name this 3. Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey thanks, I was a little confused when I saw three previous nominations up here, but nothing on the talk page. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome :), I assume no one used the closing tool in 2005 so I'd say they probably forgot to add the closes, Meh who knows  , Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, it looks like there are 2-3 valid sources, but one is a book and the others are dead links... ansh666 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Konveyor Belt: Not saying if they're good or bad, just that I can't access any of them to assess whether they are actually reliable and not trivial/passing mentions. ansh666 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pokémon#Fan_sites (and that could probably be forked, as Pokémon is a quite lengthy article). Pax 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Site gets a fairly large number of Google news mentions, but I haven't reviewed them to decide one way or another on notability yet. Pinging @Lugia2453: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4 Delete - this has been sent to AfD and declined at DRV so many times, a new creation really has to overwhelmingly show notability for the word go. There are news hits but after looking at several like this, they seem to just mention Bulbapedia as a source or a brief mention, with not much about the site at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This version of the article is significantly different from the versions that were deleted by VfD (yes, Votes for Deletion) in 2005. Every other version was speedy deleted, so G4 does not apply in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree with that, but the DRVs in 2009, 2010, 2011 said "endorse the delete" every time. Still, I'm no grumpy deletionist, if somebody can improve the article and prove me to be completely and utterly wrong, that would be great! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that DRV isn't AfD - it's for contesting the procedure of a close, not the outcome of a close. Every time, nobody found anything wrong with the process to overturn it, nor did anyone provide any new reliable sources (though one guy tried really really hard, apparently). Either way, DRV refers back to the old article which was deleted (yes, in 2005, a lot has changed since then), so is irrelevant here. ansh666 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm happy to downgrade to a straight "delete" ... but I can't go any further than that. I've dug into book sources and the best I can muster is things like this which is a one-sentence mention in a self-published source. That's just not enough to save the article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pokémon#Fan_sites, where a sentence or two should be added on the topic. (I'll look into that.) It's mentioned in passing in several sources as a definitive reference for the series, but it doesn't have any kind of dedicated coverage so as to warrant its own article. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and there's a worthwhile redirect target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge to Pokémon#Fan community (Section was renamed) seems to be a good solution. I would imagine one short paragraph could be reliably sourced and not be undue weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB, for what it's worth, I've already added any source I thought was worth merging (comes to about a sentence rather than a paragraph). czar ⨹ 16:33, 11 March 2015 (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.

March 7 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Para Con edit

Pensacola Para Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the article's tone and style are problems, but considering the amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG we might think it more a matter for clean-up than for deletion. 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But when you check Google News, you see only 24 hits (13, in effect), while the 16k normal Google hits boil down to a mere 120 hits.   The Banner talk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting to see that this kind of reasoning is never or at least seldom used when discussing a non-USA subject. The Banner talk 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does the article need clean-up? Yes. Does it need footnotes instead of a list of citations? Of course. Should an editor go in with a chainsaw and prune those giant lists of names? You bet. But does the article cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with cited in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. Also yes, and that's why it should be kept. (And then fixed.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2015 (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.
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. Nakon 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Communications edit

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

The "global attention" consists of minor notices. " DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Confusingly enough there are companies with the same name in Birmingham UK (PR firm) and India (circuit boards). From this, it seems that this company has mainly local clients, which is fine but only local coverage. Their new office got a lot of attention, but I would rather credit that to the architect. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:12, 15 March 2015 (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.

March 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflec Beat edit

Reflec Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Reflec Beat Limelight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reflec Beat Colette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reflec Beat Groovin'!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is notable, but the article has spiralled into an undue-fest of song lists and other content at best sourced to primary source (official sites) and fan wikis, I would suggest WP:TNT and a complete rewrite. Also bundling its three sequels, being no better. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) 05:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Subject is notable .... I would suggest WP:TNT and a complete rewrite". You can do that by normal editing, so a deletion is not required. To help, I've bulldozed two unsourced over-detailed lists for you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no valid reason for deletion has been provided. AfD is not for cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Looking back, a merger might be better here (notable enough as a series). Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the comments. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Merger discussion started at Talk:Reflec Beat#Merger proposal. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:08, 5 March 2015 (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.
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. JodyB talk 22:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing games edit

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

Does not seem to be a remarkable product. A search failed to find any reliable coverage. I could have nominated it for A7, but I don't think A7 applies to products. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you remark, noting that "breathing games" are not remarkable enough of a product to be discussed on wikipedia. Given the impact regular video games have on human health and education I would like to encourage you to reconsider this remark. Additionally you have failed to find a reliable coverage and I'd like to ask you which keyword searches you searched for and on which search engine? There seems to be enough coverage available, but we have not yet referenced it appropriately. Please do reply as we are working hard on this article and we would appreciate it not being deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leskovsek (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced article that fails to credibly establish any form of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 01:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything except spammy results like "freeappdownload.com". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep Comment I haven't looked very deeply yet, but RSes do appear to exist.
  1. There is an academic article on the topic at entitled "Breathe: A Game to Motivate the Adherence of Breathing Exercises" that was published by Belinda Lange et al. in the Journal of Physical Therapy Education (Vol.25, No.1. Winter 2011).
  2. This paper was predated by a 2009 IEEE presentation by Lange as well,
  3. a 2008 paper by Krestina L. Amon and Andrew Campbell entitled "Can Children with AD/HD Learn Relaxation and Breathing Techniques through Biofeedback Video Games?" published in the Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology Vol. 8, and
  4. a 2003 paper by John Sharry et al. entitled "Relax To Win Treating children with anxiety problems with a biofeedback video game" that was published in Eisteach Vol.2.
I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll try to make a more thorough search later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhh, the journal article looks like it's an attempt to make breathing exercises fun, not an article about video games that use breathing as a controller. Not sure about the last two, but I think they might be better suited to biofeedback. I guess this article could be rewritten as "biofeedback in video games" instead of an ad for a specific series of games made by Breathing Labs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does sound good to me, NinjaRobotPirate. I missed the fact that this article seems to be written about only the Breathing Labs products. I'll strike my "keep" for now, but I think an article could probably be written on the topic of breath-controlled games based on the sources that are out there. -Thibbs (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2015 (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.

March 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to FIFA 14#Ultimate Team. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 14 Ultimate Team edit

FIFA 14 Ultimate Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABLE, is written like a game guide and is unsourced. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (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.

February 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. czar ⨹ 16:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PoBros Inc. edit

PoBros Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:CORP. The article is sourced with questionable sources, primary sources and reviews or articles about the games made by the company. Parts of the article also comes off as advertising for the company too. GamerPro64 22:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does look to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It would furthermore be pretty rare for a developer to have an article before any of its software/products/games (not that that's a requirement). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage by independent reliable sources; in a search I found only a press relelase. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2015 (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.
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. Nakon 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jitter Clicking edit

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

Unsourced gaming phenomenon. smileguy91Need to talk? 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (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.

February 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I can't find consensus for deletion, but significant discussion arose around the fact Calculords may be more notable than Seanbaby himself, and a repurposing of the article to focus on the apparently notable game might be a solution (which can be discussed on the talk page since it is not deletion). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seanbaby edit

AfDs for this article:
Seanbaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer/personality; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR / WP:ENT. Previous 2006 AFD is amusing to read- editors (really, fans) claimed notability due to his minor writing/TV appearances, not citing significant coverage or policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seanbaby is (or, at least, was) one of the more popular Internet-based comedy writers. For example, in this interview, Patton Oswalt cites Seanbaby as one of his favorite writers. His video game Calculords got significant coverage, according to a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. But I don't see too much for him personally in a cursory search for sources. I'll do more searches later. It would surprise me if he were non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow, the nom was right: what a bullshit lot of Keeps in the last AfD, which threw up a whole lot of "This guy is so important on the interwebz!!!" without bothering with so much as one shred of proof of it. And that's the issue here. I'm seeing a number of sources quoting or citing him, but not a single one that discusses him, and as the relevant guidelines explicitly state, a quote from a subject can't be used to support the notability of the subject. Come up with some interviews or articles in reliable sources about Seanbaby, and I'm happy to change my mind. Nha Trang Allons! 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've got these two: [28] and [29]. Not sure how good they are. I guess I'll look more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pre-2009 AFD, and Wikipedia in general, was rather different. The discussions were a lot less in-depth, as witnessed in the first nom. Anyways, similar to NRP above, I also find it somewhat hard to believe he's not-notable, with the numerous mainstream publications he's written for. It may be harder to justify, since his writing is so over-the-top and satirical, but he may satisfy something like WP:JOURNALIST or something too... Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it stands, the sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate hardly contain the appropriate significant coverage required to keep this standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Crave Online would be a reliable source, but doesn't really discuss him in much detail. Not sure about the "Mancave" source. I'll see if I can dig up anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here's some source I've found. They're not the most detailed, but they do discuss him, and what he's known for (Writing for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Cracked.com, making video games, etc.)
His game Calculords seems to have quite a bit of coverage here, and isn't mentioned in the article. It should probably be expanded to include that using these refs. Artw (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these sources seem to be significant coverage of the game, not its creator. Yes, there are questions/answers about himself, but it's still hardly enough coverage to merit an article, in my view.. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by NinjaPitateRobot and Sergecross, also WP:ENTERTAINER 2. Artw (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2015 (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.

February 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeBlock edit

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

Non-notable software. Article was tagged as A7, however A7 does not apply to products or services. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence provided or to be found to support notability. There may be a reason for this: article claims that it "has over 100 downloads". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A WP:SPA article by User:Iancthompson on a game developed by one Ian Thompson. There appear to have been other similarly named games; I am seeing no evidence that this iOS game is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Odd that CSD criteria are so specific, that there is a criteria for musical recordings, but not paintings, or books; one for companies, but not products. Either way, this fails GNG given no coverage and only ~ 100 downloads?! --Gaff (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A7 ought to apply to products especially to non notables ones like this, Anyway per everyone above cant find any evidence of notability so fails GNG .
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.

February 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Valor Victory Gaming edit

Vision Valor Victory Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many of the articles linked to are no longer valid, this page has only been updated several times in over a year and a half, visiting the website shows they only have one active team in the game Fifa. Team has only 1 Lan accomplishment in the last 2 years and several since 2012. All of the collaborations section links to articles that are not valid. AcePuppy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems some of its members sometimes contribute to a "geek themed" blog, but that's them writing, not articles covering them, that doesn't help their case for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (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.

February 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alexander (journalist) edit

Leigh Alexander (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there is a large body of work from the subject, coverage about her by reliable secondary sources is self-generated to near non-existent. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the subject of dedicated works, but an easy pass of WP:JOURNALIST #1—widely cited either for her reporting or as an authority in gaming:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/21/7413619/2014-in-review-the-year-that-sucked
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/3/5862916/snowpiercer-bioshock-infinite
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/19/4445018/games-for-change-2013-keynote-speakers-leigh-alexander-jesse-schell
http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/14/3875420/video-game-violence
http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/28/4155650/women-in-the-gaming-industry-share-their-number-one-reason-to-be-in
http://www.slidetoplay.com/news/gaming-and-tech-memoir-breathing-machine-now-available/ "an esteemed games and culture critic whose work has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The Atlantic, and many other places"
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/19/the-rps-electronic-wireless-leigh-alexander/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/31/the-electronic-wireless-leigh-alexander-gdc/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/08/21/red-alert-3-trailer-analysis-war-and-boobs/
http://kotaku.com/5853739/this-video-might-convince-your-doubtful-friends-that-games-can-be-art
http://kotaku.com/will-the-21st-century-be-defined-by-games-1293867009
czar ⨹ 01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Czar's sources, plus one more - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/07/in-praise-of-leigh-alexander-gamergate-video-games-sexism-bullying - Nomination is a terrible failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with all of those (except the Guardian one) is that they're circular. Of course the subject is popular in gaming blogs, which by definition are not independent of her. I did not overlook those, I looked for more material similar to the Guardian article. Unfortunately I didn't find any. This is the same problem where startups are "notable" because they're mentioned in Valleywag and TechCrunch. None of those are independent of the subjects, and the situation is the same here. Compare to other tech journalists who are actually notable outside of their scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours walled garden environment. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And niche, tabletop RPGs will be notable when covered in niche, tabletop RPG publications. (More like the argument's circular.) Video game journalists (in vetted publications) refer to the author as an authority. This isn't a GNG argument—that lots of people have discussed her in depth—but a creative professional argument—that she is widely seen to be a figure in the field. Her work is quoted somewhere in every major publication that ever covers games as a cursory issue. Nothing else to add on this topic. czar ⨹ 13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. The available sources suggest that the person is regarded as an important figure by peers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Day One: Garry's Incident. czar ⨹ 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Games Studio edit

Wild Games Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organization existed for four years, made $7 million in revenues and had about 11-50 employees[30]. The only thing they are notable for is the Day One: Garry's Incident, which has its own article and the only purpose of this page is to summarize that one (a purpose already well-served by the Lede). The org does not appear to have done anything else of significance that could produce a general profile separate from the controversy page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (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.

February 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polycount edit

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

Promotioanl and non-notable -- see inforbox DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article some, doing partnered contests with the 1st and 3rd most played online PC games seems noteworthy to me. [1] Polypunk (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Most played PC games on gaming platform Raptr in December 2014, by share of playing time".
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the following sources: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another lazy and unhelpful AfD rationale, I'm afraid. I suppose the comment refers to the (non-removed) mission statement in the infobox - hardly a sufficient reason for deletion. The RS coverage clearly exists: a simple Google news search reveals 286 hits for "Polycount art" and 320 for "Polycount forum". A lot are incidental mentions, but the mere fact that RS have referred their readers to something on the site hundreds of time is far from meaningless - non-notable websites are not routinely referenced in RS. The in depth coverage of the site and/or its contests found in some of those RS (such as thus links provided by Sam Walton) prove notability beyond a doubt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Shacknews, Kotaku, and PCGamer are all good, but the other sources are either first-party or unreliable. In addition, I found another PCGamer source (only this one simply talks about the Polycount Pack, never mentioning the group specifically), this from Gamasutra (some good information on the success of their mods for TF2), and this from Russian IGN (I doubt it's got anything in there, the DuckDuckGo description used "MessageBoard" in it, but if anyone knows Russian, it'd be great to know for sure). With the three aforementioned good sources in the article, we have a solid history of the project, an editorial about fan-made League of Legends art that says that Polycount was part of hosting the contest, and an article about how much was paid to the creators of the Polycount Pack. Definitely enough to work with, even though there's a lot of stuff cited to unreliable sites. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A news search reveals multiple mentions of the site, including several in PC Gamer magazine. I am genuinely shocked that such a well respected editor and admin with a strong track record as DGG would file a confusing AfD with several typos which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I am concerned his account might have been compromised. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 17 February 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the close was challenged by the nominator; I've given my full rationale here. ansh666 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 edit

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that it has also been nominated by the creator for Did You Know here. If the nomination is successful, and the article is not deleted in the meantime, it will appear on the front page but without an image as fair use images are not allowed in DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making no comment on the respective merits of this AfD, an article can not appear on DYK while an AfD is in progress. Harrias talk 12:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game has caused uproar noted by a major Indonesian newspaper '''tAD''' (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This means the game has coverage in sources broader than simply games review sites, putting it more notable than many console games which are only covered on review sites '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete for a while. Wait a week or so. It is likely to be mentioned very soon in other sources than Vice, and not only as a meme... Zezen (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. This thing already has sufficient (international) coverage for an article now, and based on how extremely over the top it is, that fame is very unlikely to fade completely. Or to put it more directly: this stupid software is probably going to make further news by actually costing lives. (I am afraid it's also likely to play into the hands of religious fundamentalists because rejection of this is one thing that basically all Muslims -- and also all serious Christians -- can agree on. But that's not relevant for whether Wikipedia should report on it. After all, Wikipedia also has articles on criminals.) But to reiterate: The notability is already there. I am just arguing why this will probably not be seen differently in retrospect 10 years from now.
    Now the images are a different matter. Not every article needs an illustration, and there is precedent for censorship for purely practical concerns such as endangering lives or just extreme indecency or sheer stupidity. Example: I once happened to be around when someone uploaded a detailed photo of a woman producing a turd. Taken from below. Removing that without discussion was in a way censorship, but was absolutely necessary and totally uncontroversial. I think the images on this article have a similar status. While nobody should feel revolted just for seeing a normal body function from an unusual perspective, this just doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. The typical reaction by Muslims, including the nice, normal and tolerant majority, but also by many other adherents of monotheistic religions will be similar. As an atheist I don't feel like that, but respecting it is still the right thing to do and is basically on the same level as not urinating in churches.
    I uninstalled or forgot how to use the scripts necessary to properly propose something for deletion, and I am not going to try doing this by hand. But I suggest that someone should propose the images for deletion. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's an image of a work — the same as Piss Christ or KKK posters or Nazi propaganda. A user who accesses this article would expect to see such an image, it's in its only acceptable place. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the only place where we even have to argue about the images, but even here they're not needed. The other things you mention have way higher notability and cultural/historical significance -- so far. (They are also each individual artifacts in a way that screenshots are not, although the entire piece of software is.) Hans Adler 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sam Walton asked for the sources that establish notability. Though some people don't like it, it's well established that notability is not related to the language in which the source is published. E.g., what is notable in Albania and in Albanian, is a priori notable for the English Wikipedia. One of the sources currently on the article is in the game review section of es:eldiario.es, an online newspaper in Spain. Another is in the global news section of the online edition of Republika, an Indonesian newspaper with a primarily Muslim readership. Yet another is in Vice, a Canadian magazine. (Fortunately the other established newspapers and magazines available online appear to be too responsible to report about this -- nothing good will come of it.) The remaining sources seem to be the typical mix of internet resources. Although this is only indirectly relevant, two of them have sufficient notability to have their own articles in either English+German or Spanish+Catalan: gulli.com and es:MeriStation. Hans Adler 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this game is garnering a lot of attention and I've seen a few reliable sources already mention it, more sources will probably come in too. Kymako (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the above keep voters: Can you provide some of the sources which establish notability? There are only three in the article currently and a google search isn't showing up any more. I suspect this may generate some coverage within the week so I'll refrain from voting right now, but without more than there currently is I'll be voting delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's predictable that if the article is deleted at this stage, it will be recreated when the game receives more attention and a backlash is provoked. Maybe the article should be transferred to user space for a time? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:N with the 3 instances of coverage noted. Wikipedia is a listing of every offensive creation that gets discussed by 3 writers. Edison (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify The article should be transferred to user space for the time being, per my reasoning given above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Like Zezen said above, I think it's a bit too early to tell whether it should get the boot. I'd give it a little more time before making a final decision. lurkaccount (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not keep articles in anticipation of future notability (especially when the existence of an article can affect the topic's future notability). At the time of article creation, and at the moment (coverage by Vice and two other blogs, and article in Indonesian paper), it does not meet notability standards. Magedq (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh...while I would agree with this in most cases, I don't know if it really applies here, or at least I don't think it should. This sort of seems like something that's being captured mid-exposion, like you just know it's going to turn into something bigger than it has already become in almost no time flat.
      Then again WP has never been that good at documenting current event-type stuff such as this...maybe it should be put on hold, idk. lurkaccount (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is how much Wikipedia will contribute to this becoming notable. A lot of sources might only write on this that the information, instead of being scattered over random blogs, and papers in other languages, is instead on Wikipedia - with useful game play screenshots (not found in more reputable sources). Wikipedia having one of the only (English) articles on this game, is currently playing an active role in the development of this topic.Magedq (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vice magazine, which is in English, and the Indonesian newspaper have solved the screenshot problem intelligently by chosing a "select animal" screen from which the visual style and the offensive potential of the software become sufficiently clear because the rest is easily filled in by the imagination. If the Vice article isn't pulled, I don't share your optimism that deleting the Wikipedia article can prevent anything. Hans Adler 13:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see what you mean, but I don't think its presence on Wikipedia will really have that much outside influence in the long run. It's gonna spread either way. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, seeing as more reliable sources have been found and more are sure to be found in the very near future, I don't really see a need to delete the article as of right now. lurkaccount (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage in reliable sources and public attention. --Dezidor (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, while the subject has some notability, it hasn't been picked up by any major news outlet, let alone a video game website. While Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, that doesn't mean we should wait for things to happen. --Soetermans. T / C 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, 'fraid due to the subject matter of the game it's unlikely to be reported on by major news outlets until something they have to report on goes down. That's one of the aspects of Wikipedia's notability policy I've always had a problem with, when Wikipedia can't report on something just because the media at large is unwilling to report on it.
      I wouldn't mind if this is deleted so long as it's allowed to be recreated when its notability is more "CRYSTAL", I just don't think it's necessary.
      Also - I personally think the coverage it has already is enough to call for an article, even if it is being under-reported. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Three days of news coverage does not demonstrate long-term notability. It's too soon for a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Coverage by Vice News, Republika, and The Epoch Times (not currently in the article, but here) is sufficient to meet GNG in my view. Regarding the gameplay image, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material. But even that aside I'm concerned that the caption contains OR. How do we know which option the player has selected? -Thibbs (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture makes reasonably clear what is happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a naive question, but from the angle depicted how can you tell the difference between anal sex with a pig and vaginal sex with a pig? Might the image not even depict a neutral pre-coital condition before the player has selected anything? Wouldn't we need some (reliable) source to back up the claim that "Muhammad [is engaged in] anal sex with a pig"? It might help to establish context if we can find a RS that provides commentary on that specific non-free image. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen videos of the game. Vaginal coitus is done in the missionary position to all animals (obviously not to the men), and anal from that behind position. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion that would be better held on the article's talk page, if the article is in fact kept. The more important issue is that minor problems of this kind are not a reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From The Almightey Drill's response my suspicions concerning WP:OR seem to have been fully justified, but FreeKnowledgeCreator makes a good point that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion based on the image's caption. In fact, let the closer take note that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion at all. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great game. Certainly should have it's own page. It is actually a lot of fun and a turn on. There is no genuine reson to remove this page, besides the fact that some find it offensive. I find a lot of pages on Wikipedia offensive, but they need to be there to describe the world we live in. This game is part of that world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.108 (talk • contribs) 20:10, February 12, 2015
    • Hi @199.7.159.108:, please note that we're not debating whether or not it's a "great game" and the nominator doesn't say it is offensive, we're discussing whether or not it is notable enough to have its own article. If we would come to the conclusion that it isn't notable, then that actually would be a good reason to delete the article. --Soetermans. T / C 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I find Hans Adler's rationale compelling, and as Thibbs points out, this is getting international attention. Even if this has not attracted much coverage in the Western World, Wikipedia aims to have an worldwide scope, and the sources show international coverage in well known publications, even though some of those sources aren't in English. Eddymason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep, notability has been proven. Notable, reliable and verifiable sources have reported on the game. --Soetermans. T / C 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets GNG based on the sources in the article alone. This is a game, not a person or an event; as such, it doesn't need X days of news coverage to be considered notable. The game may be disgraceful, and the images may be questionable... but that has no relevance to the notability of the game itself, which is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to news coverage and inherent situational hilarity. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I noticed that it caused a fair amount of upset in Indonesia, where major newspapers published critical op-eds about it. 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This game has enough coverage in reliable sources. Also here is another article about the game from a Swedish online magazine.213.114.144.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith. And Also pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (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.

February 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM: Guard Shield edit

PRISM: Guard Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game. A web search turns up only downloads, Amazon, and Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment searches for "Prism: Threat Level Red", the title of the commercial version, do turn up some results that mention this version, but not by name. Could be worth renaming and adding that info. Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/11/26/new-prism-for-free/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/03/11/rival-working-on-national-guard-games
Not nearly enough for an article, and no worthwhile redirect targets (dev is a redlink, likely NN[35][36]). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking over Czar's sources, I'm not even seeing enough for a stub, it's just saying that there's an update for the game that no one expected and that it deals with the National Guard. If anyone knows Russian, this might be good, but it's only a single paragraph, so I doubt it'll tip the scales too much. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 23 February 2015 (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.

February 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie Pixel edit

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

After searching, I cannot find a reliable source that covers Nixie in depth at all. As it stands right now, this article fails Notability for web content. wL<speak·check> 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do the refs I did add help on that matter ? Yamitatsu (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if those refs count as reliable sources, which are needed when it comes to living people. --wL<speak·check> 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. The meatpuppetry here is no more than a minor irritation. The votes may be in favor of "delete", but policy is not: Sergecross73's analysis of the sources indicates clearly enough that there is in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and if they're on the fence, the conclusion should be keep. The comment by Pax, though apparently controversial, is worthwhile pondering as well. One more thing: Jory should stay away from this article. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jory Prum edit

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

Shameless autobiography of an apparently wholly non-notable sound engineer. Sourced mostly to IMDb, YouTube, various wikis, blogs and the like. No in-depth coverage whatsoever; several of the sources cited, such as the Chicago Tribune, do not mention him at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Justlettersandnumbers is shamelessly pursuing deletion of this article based entirely on it being autobiographical. The editor sent multiple warnings as I worked on substantial revisions to the old article in my sandbox (in an effort to ensure neutral tone and provide citations for all information included) and has tried to find any excuse possible to make it appear as if the citations are not of quality. If this editor's standard was applied to other people, it would prove difficult for anyone to be considered notable or for a citation to be made that referred to modern forms of media.
Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. (This concept is accepted to such a degree that books are titled using the phrase: Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art). As such, articles like the Chicago Tribune citation Justlettersandnumbers singles out are provided as verification that the film attributed to Jory Prum did indeed appear in the festival. A further citation is provided which links to the film itself, allowing anyone to see the direct connection of Jory Prum to the achievement of having his work accepted into a highly regarded film festival. Film festivals commonly refer only to the director of a film by name, not the audio engineer.
As IMDB is considered a poor source due to its self-editability, YouTube citations were provided to verify involvement on projects such as The Walking Dead: The Game and Broken Age. Jory Prum was deemed notable enough by the Nordic Game Conference to be invited two years in a row to give keynotes at the major conference on video game development. The fact that one of the projects discussed in a keynote also has won 90+ Game of the Year awards and multiple awards for the voice acting/performances (which, again, are partially attributable to the invisible art of audio engineering and dialogue production), would, in many people's eyes, make for further notability.
Another YouTube citation features Ralph Eggleston, the director of the Pixar film For the Birds, accepting the Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Feature". In his acceptance speech he personally thanks "Skywalker Sound, Jory Prum, and The Riders in the Sky for their wonderful sound work". One could argue that being personally included in the same breath with the highly-acclaimed Skywalker Sound during an Oscar acceptance speech would indicate notability.
Further, Justlettersandnumbers effectively declares all wikis and blogs to be valueless as citations. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, was cited as additional verification of involvement as part of the LucasArts sound team and projects worked on during that time. It is easy to see that the Wookieepedia article on Jory Prum both verifies this information and was created in 2009 by a user who is quite obviously not Jory Prum. The other wiki/blog cited is the fan site for "The Walking Dead" series, which conducted interviews with many members of the audio and voice team responsible for the game. The page was created by Kaffe4200 and the history of that page indicates it has not been created or edited by Jory Prum.
One of the blogs cited is an interview Jory Prum's alma mater conducted regarding his involvement with "The Walking Dead: The Game" and how his studies at CalArts influenced his work. The citation is provided both to verify involvement with the project, as well as verification of attending the California Institute of the Arts and some biographical information about his mentors and focus of study.
Additionally, several Wikipedia articles refer to Jory Prum, including the article for Grim Fandango, the classic LucasArts adventure game. The Grim Fandango article points out Jory Prum's involvement in the restoration work of that classic title and cites a long-form article at Polygon, a premier video game news website. The long-form article spends about 20% of its coverage discussing the work Jory Prum performed, which was critical to the remastered edition, released in January 2015. A YouTube video is also cited in regards to this project, during which the highly respected composer Peter McConnell praises Jory Prum's work in the restoration efforts, stating "...it was a real nail-biter because, you know, all those performances were tucked away on these tapes. But we got 'em, thanks to a guy named Jory Prum, who's a genius who lives around my area, who does...just knows everything about everything technical."
Lastly, while working on the substantial revision of the article, I made efforts to discuss the neutrality, the quality of citations, and the qualification of notability with both Justlettersandnumbers and Jimfbleak, another editor. The discussion is documented on my User_talk:Jory#February_2015. It is clear that Justlettersandnumbers is preoccupied with the autobiography aspect and uninterested in the actual content, whether it is neutral, whether the article is of value, or if notability is established. Justlettersandnumbers's only qualification for notability in this case appears to be whether someone unconnected has authored the article, and therefore Justlettersandnumbers has decided the test is failed merely due to the autobiographical involvement.
I therefore rebutt Justlettersandnumbers's assertions and ask that the article be kept.Jory (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I speedied the first draft of this, but I was asked to help improve it, and since autobiographies aren't actually forbidden, I cooperated with that request. It's worth following the talk page link above to see the discussion. I did point out that although the article was probably safe from speedy deletion it could be nominated here. Because of my involvement with this article, I don't intend to vote to keep or delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is apparent that the Wikipedia editor fighting to delete the Jory Prum article, using the ID justlettersandnumbers (JLAN), is the one exhibiting, not only extreme bias, but extreme malice, in a manner which appears to be more consistent with personal vendetta than actual attempt at neutrality.
In other words, the argument for deletion of the Prum article is not a legitimate attempt to "neutralize" content in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but a biased attempt by a non-neutral individual with a personal grudge, to discredit and malign, using Wikipedia as both the weapon and the battleground, in a "shameless" ad-hominem attack.
In summary, it is the opinions as expressed by JLAN, and not the article itself, that are by Wikipedia's own definitions and guidelines, violations of Wikipedia terms and conditions. CrisCross1836 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)— CrisCross1836 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comments. I disagree with the nomination when it says "wholly non-notable" as clearly there is a little coverage of the subject. The question before us is whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. I have my doubts but, much as I distrust autobiographical writing and detest the personal attacks on the nominator above, I am not quite sure enough to vote delete. I am not familiar with the precedents. Do we have articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage? Would other articles regard those accolades as significant? One thing I am pretty sure of is that CrisCross1836 (seemingly an account registered just for this particular issue) is doing anything but helping Jory's cause by hyping up the discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to DanielRigal's question about other articles for similar people with same (or lower) levels of coverage. This is just a random selection I found of other game developers or audio engineers. (It is difficult to find any articles at all that refer to video game audio engineers, most likely due to the lack of coverage the press tends to pay to the contributions of that portion of the games industry.) Sean Clark, Michael Stemmle, Larry Ahern, Paul Wedgwood, Jeff Hickman, Joe Sparks, Howie Beno, Mike Coykendall, Niko Bolas, Steve Burke. None of these are nominated for deletion at this time. The Joe Sparks article was tagged for speedy deletion and the tag was removed in 2010 with the comment, "removed speedy tag - there are claims to significance in article". Mike Coykendall was tagged for deletion a year ago, but there is no note as to why the article was allowed to remain. Steve Burke was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was declined with the comment, "decline; asserts importance with scoring of video games". Some are clearly tagged as needing improvement or citations. None have very many quality citations. Another good article to compare to might be Jared Emerson-Johnson, a composer I have worked with on a great many projects. We have worked on projects that received awards together, and I have utilized his article as an guide for the substantial revision of mine. Also, I agree with you that CrisCross1836 is not adding to the discussion in a constructive manner. I do not feel that I have been singled out by Justlettersandnumbers; only that the rules are being applied unevenly and that citations are being cherry-picked by the editor to prove a point that is not true when viewed within a larger frame. Jory (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apology for not being clear. I was merely responding to the question posted by DanielRigal about other articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage. I have fixed the indentation to make the response more obviously part of a thread. Jory (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one who nominated this article for speedy deletion (right here) primarily on the grounds that it was an article that was made by the person who was the subject matter. Looking at the article in its new incarnation, I don't believe that the article has that much reliable sources to show the subject matter being notable. The Polygon article was a nice catch but seeing IMDB, Wookiepedia, a link from Google Groups, YouTube videos and this as sources, along with some references that I'm unfamiliar with their reliable (e.g Lzy Gmrs) really has me believing there's a case of grasping at straws to find some sources to use for this page. GamerPro64 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to GamerPro64's comment about certain unfamiliar or "weak" sources. The reason for the Lzy Gmrs citation is because the Golden Joystick Awards nominations data is no longer shown on the official website and most reputable news sites only include a short list, which doesn't mention the nominees for less popular categories like "Best Audio". I have now replaced that flat list from a lesser known news blog with the archive.org cache of the original website. The reason for some of the other citations you are calling into question is not so much a "grasping at straws", but out of an effort to cite information as being credible and not pulled out of thin air. For example, the NY Times link was to verify involvement with the two films listed, since IMDB is considered a weak source and one would hope the NY Times and All Media Guide (which are not user editable) would be considered stronger. The Google Groups citation was to verify the claim of having worked at Jim Henson's Creature Shop. I was not given screen credit for the work I did on a film while I was there and the only online verification I could source was a thread relating to work I had been performing with the Acorn Computer-based proprietary Henson Puppet Control System at the time. I realize that particular citation is flimsy, and if it were to be removed, then there would be no way (apart from my resume and from anecdotes of others I worked with) that I actually did work there. Of course, it is far less notable than having done signature sound design for a PIxar film and being thanked in the director's acceptance speech, and could easily be removed if it is considered too weak to include in the biography. I'm unclear why a YouTube video that contains a third party discussing work the subject did or verifies involvement in a project is considered weak sourcing. There were also two books cited, one published by Pixar, and the other by Oxford University; do those sources not qualify as strong and indicative of notability? Jory (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot get into the significance of references for this article, but I feel strongly about the notability of the subject matter. Alone his recent contributions to the restoration of Grim Fandango, detailed at Polygon, makes him notable to computer (gaming) historians, gamers and others. Ltning (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)— Ltning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep * Without being a game buff, I have always been interested in sound engineering. This is not exactly a high profile profession, and if anyone tells me they know the name of the team behind "Amadeus" or "Black Hawk Down", I'll be the first to call on their b.s. So, any references on "notability" are not only biased, but also very subjective. I think it would take someone really dedicated to the Foley sound effects or sound engineering in general to be able to name team members, even from highly acclaimed films. Returning to the topic at hand, I was quite taken with the in depth article on Polygon regarding the restoration technique for Grim Fandango and it made me want to read up more on the game itself and the crazy people who were involved in that particular task. It would be a shame to have the little information available scrapped entirely because of this controversy...RazvraTina (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— RazvraTina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and this is the first for six years. [reply]
  • Keep It seems to me to be a well cited and neutral article about an audio designer that has done a lot of important work on several big titles in both games and animation production. When you see people get mentioned by name in articles about projects like Grim Fandango, Sam and Max, For The birds, (or oscar acceptance speeches for that matter,) you would really like your google search to return a well made wiki article to you for more information.SteepMountain (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— SteepMountain (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone supply more sources that cover the subject, Jory Porum, in significant detail? Outside of the Polygon source, every single one I've decided to spot-check from the article either mentioned him very briefly in passing, or not at all. It needs to discuss him in significant detail for him to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.. Without providing more actual proof, all these editors coming out to say it's "a well sourced article" are going to be ignored, because it's a baseless claim. You need to prove what you're actually saying. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some of the more thorough sources:
* Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango (Polygon)
* From Scarface to Simlish (Mix Magazine)
* The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) (VG newspaper)
* The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work (24700: News from California Institute of the Arts)
* The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum (The Walking Dead Wiki)
* Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper)
* StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine)
* What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine)
* The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video)
* The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7)
It is challenging for audio engineers to get more than a mention (if even that much) in the media. Most of the time, audio engineers are just the butt of everyone's jokes, not real news or features.
Most of the other citations on the article are merely support for factual data, since Wikipedia requires citations for all information. Jory (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources:
  1. Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango - Sourced deemed reliable by consensus at WP:VG/S. While Prum is not necessarily the main things being discussed in it, it does discuss him in significant detail. Good source.
  2. From Scarface to Simlish - I'm not familiar with the website, but looking it over, I didn't find anything that made me think it would be unreliable. Much like the Polygon source, he is not the main subject, but is discussed in some detail. Good source
  3. The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) - I can't read Norwegian, but his name is mentioned 11 times through the article, its a relative long piece, and a photo of him at the top as the main photo, so it appears to cover him in detail. Probably reliable.
  4. The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work - Appears to be a non-notable blog from some sort of educational center. Clicking on the author just gave a link to "other things he posted", no info on credentials. Probably not usuable.
  5. The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum Wikis are almost always not useable - because they are open to edit by anyone, and often run by people of no real authority. Not usable.
  6. Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper) - Link wouldn't work for me, so I couldn't check it. Inconclusive.
  7. StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  8. What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  9. The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video) - WP:VG/S doesn't have a stance on whether they're neutral or not. Interviews are generally useable for details, but not necessarily for going towards notability, because it's really more of a first party account. Inconclusive.
  10. The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7) - I'm unfamiliar with the website, and don't know Swedish. Probably not a good sign that his name is only mentioned one single time in the article. Inconclusive
I'm still on the fence on this one. Generally, its seems like 4-5 reliable sources covering the subject in detail is enough to warrant a "Keep". This one is close. I'm starting to think there could be a policy-based reason for keeping the article, unless someone can present some ways that I'm wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 If you are intending to contribute here, note that votes from Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts with few or no edits elsewhere will be disregarded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the notability criterion. A subject must meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or he/she/it cannot have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. The sources passionately touted above by the author-and-subject of this article do not meet the criteria of independence and reliability. Wikis, Facebook, IMDb and similar sites are neither reliable nor independent. Sergecross finds some of the references to be acceptable, and I respect his opinion, but I am less impressed by the reliability of the sources. As Jory mentioned above, "Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art." Yes, it is. Invisible professions usually do not receive the required coverage. That does not mean they get to ignore or bypass the notability requirement; it means they don't get an article. BTW I trust the closing administrator will ignore all the sockpuppet or meatpuppet "keep" votes here from single purpose accounts. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, I do agree with what you say, and I'm not okay with any of the social media/WP:USERG-violating sources either. I'm open to input on the remainder of the sources. I didn't see anything wrong with them, but I can't say I'm an expert in "sound production" sources or anything, so by all means let me know if I'm overlooking details of the sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per some of the sources Jory has provided and per Sergecross73's analysis of them which I largely agree with. Jory should brush up on WP:COI paying specific attention to WP:COISELF. There is no good reason that Jory's edits should represent 73% of the content and 97% of the total edits. I also trust that the closing admin will ignore the blatant meatpuppetry. -Thibbs (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify my view (in light of Czar's comment below), I think the subject meets GNG. Based on the sources provided. The question balances on how much coverage constitutes "significant coverage". I'd say the coverage is sufficiently significant to give it a pass. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to state for the record that I have never posted on WP under any account other than the one I am using now, nor have I asked people to post favorable comments, nor told anyone that they should post or what to say. Any comments posted by the users being flagged as SPAs were done by people who were not me and were posted of their own volition. You can call them meatpuppets if you so choose; those posts are not affiliated with me, although it is entirely possible they are people I know or have worked with at some point. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that I have tried to be honest, straightforward, level-headed, and ethical throughout this entire process and that asking others to post on my behalf in order to influence the discussion here is simply not something I will do. Jory (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jory's shameless and ought-to-know better WP:COI and WP:spammy walls-of-text above are almost certainly counter-productive, but if pornstars get to keep their articles based upon winning significant industry awards, then I don't see why he can't under the same criteria. Pax 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these arguments related to "occupations" are invalid as well. Much like Jory's argument of "well its hard for people in my profession to get sources" doesn't matter, neither does the status of any occupation. It's third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, and not breaking any violations of WP:NOT - this is all that matters. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not so much that this article lacks third-party sources, but that there are few that discuss him in detail, as opposed to discussing things he's worked on and just mentioning him. Even so, there appear to be some that are primarily about him, e.g. MobyGames, GameReactor. Tezero (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mobygames isn't a reliable source, it fails WP:USERG. WP:VG/S is undecided on if it's an RS. It's a video interview though, so it's usually considered more of a first party source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Grim Fandango. I look to WP:CREATIVE. While Prum has coverage in somewhat of a niche field, I see the sources discussed with Serge above and they don't speak of him in such a way to fulfill Creative #1, 2, 3, or 4, which puts us back at the general notability guideline, where there is coverage that isn't quite significant. Again, what is the subject known for? Is his oeuvre cited for its monumentality? The sources do not say yes. Additionally, the article is overrun with details that do not descend from secondary sources as something of a hat rack. I would be happy to reconsider this stance if given more dedicated (and reliable) sourcing. This discussion is no doubt exacerbated by the author's inability to distance himself from the article. Wikipedia and AfD carries along just fine without any of us, and things move smoother when those overly involved can distance themselves. After deletion, I recommend a redirect to Grim Fandango, Prum's most notable work. With his knowledge of and competency with Wikipedia, I hope the author sticks around WP:VG to edit unrelated articles. czar ⨹ 02:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grim Fandango as the subject is not notable enough to have its own article under WP:GNG. Lacks any verifiable sources needed to properly cite a BLP. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning weakest of all keeps) - This is a tough one. On one hand, there may be enough coverage to get by WP:BIO. On the other, what purpose does WP:COS serve (and it's quite clear wording) if it has no practical implications (i.e. WP:TNT)? @Jory: Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. - Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to provide a venue to celebrate those professions which go under-recognized elsewhere. In fact, one of the common criticisms of Wikipedia is that when it operates according to its own rules, as a tertiary source, it reinforces the status quo (i.e. covers things already well covered). I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I appreciate your thoughts. I was not suggesting that WP should accept an article merely due to audio engineering being an invisible art; I was more intending the point that while some professions (such as acting or composing) can get heaps of media coverage and are easy to find reliable sources for, audio engineering as an invisible art is particularly challenging to get real coverage. As a professional, I've spent a great deal of time promoting my business and myself, trying to get any coverage I can. Most of these end up as press coverage of projects, though, not of the studio or person themselves. I guess the question I have is what constitutes enough coverage? If that standard is applied equally to all subjects, it certainly would exclude those who may be deemed notable in their own fields, despite not having name recognition outside of their field.
I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. I'm curious what constitutes a "horde". ;-) I see three accounts that have been flagged as being irregular editors, two of which may certainly be a single-purpose account. Jory (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I count 4, and then there's yourself, as both the subject and the article creator. (You're not quite an SPA, as you've made edits elsewhere, but you certainly have a bias/invested interest outside of building an encyclopedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 24 February 2015 (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.
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 snow close, delete. Regardless of whatever type of article this is, it's fairly clear that the consensus is to delete. At best this is a WP:ONEDAY type of scenario where this is just something someone came up with on a forum and at worst it's a WP:NOT type of deal. Either way, it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong edit

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put aside your reaction to the title for the moment, because it's not exactly what it says on the tin. What this really is, rather, is a metacommentary about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the topic described in the title, sourced only to a Facebook post which wrongly suggests that we do. This is, put simply, not the kind of thing we should have an "article" about — and it shouldn't be repurposed as what its title actually suggests, because that's not the kind of thing we should have an article about either. Taking this to AFD only because there's already a declined speedy in the edit history — I'd have speedied it straight away otherwise. Delete with TNT. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not article material. I could see an essay of this nature being created but not under this title.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (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.

February 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Skies Network edit

Virtual Skies Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game players group Deunanknute (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not seeing any good references. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability just appears to be a self-referenced gamer network. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zone of Ultima edit

Zone of Ultima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game clan Deunanknute (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see anything that could serve as independent coverage in reliable sources. And frankly, I don't see much in the article that would even represent a credible claim of notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (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.
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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NukeZone edit

AfDs for this article:
NukeZone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game Deunanknute (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no real changes since previous AfD, and frankly that was only a weak keep. The time has come to delete. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hjelte edit

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

Delete. Does not qualify WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person passed BLP and has been significantly covered by multiple reliable sources, such as Kotaku, The Daily Dot, Nintendo Enthusiast, and gamersyndrome. He has also received minor coverage from this source [37]. Valoem talk contrib 18:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Subject has a multitude of well documented, independent secondary sources. Satisfies notability guidelines deliniated by WP:BIO.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known figure in smash community and significantly covered by well known sources. Thehack771 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Covered by well known sources, this person passes BLP and is extremely notable in the Smash community (Leffen has taken a set on ALL FIVE Melee gods, making himself a Demigod in some sort). UltraDark:) 2 CHAT 21:49, 5 February 2015 (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.

February 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive (video game) edit

Thrive (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Game still far from release, no sign of meeting our guidelines for software notability - sole Reliable Sourcy reference does not mention Thrive. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dev here (Untrustedlife, Michael Hamm) (Im not a team lead, just a humble programmer), but we have been itertively releasing updates for the game for several months. Actually.But A fan set up the wikipedia entry.I went ahead and made it a bit more accurate (the article) however, I agree that it is not really that "notable" yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.92.99 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only source which isn't a reddit post, is actually a review of Spore. No third-party sources mentioning the game can be found. Naturally, the article can be re-created once it becomes notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now at least. There's no third party coverage yet, and no hurry to create the article, considering how early in development the game appears to be. —Torchiest talkedits 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are over already more than 10 versions of the current in-development game[1] available. It is also, according to the developers, one of the rare game that intends to be scientifically exact, which is why it should be notable[2]. BurnoutShou (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://thrivegame.forum-free.ca/t1276-thrive-releases
  2. ^ http://revolutionarygamesstudio.com/
We don't take product creators' words that something is particularly special. Really, in general, when we say "notable", we really mean "noted" - that other people of significance are talking about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:N clearly states that the we need multiple independent sources with non-trivial coverage to meet that guideline. Statements from a developer are obviously not independent.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search comes up empty. It's a bit too soon for this game, and we can recreate the article later when there's coverage. I suggest they submit a few press releases to gaming blogs. That might get the ball rolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other, similar comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2015 (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.

February 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. WP:SNOW closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Souls RPG edit

'Souls RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete as non-notable per WP:GNG, all refs are internal Deunanknute (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (either as "souls rpg" or "bleeding souls"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 02:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Czar. — Joaquin008 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Czar. I couldn't find any third party reliable sources for this game. (There are some false-positives out there because there's a number of unrelated JRPGs with the word "Soul" in the title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 1 February 2015 (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.

January 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wars edit

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

non-notable, current ref's appear to be promotional Deunanknute (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2015 (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.

January 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Soft deletion, equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution (Bemani Pocket video games) edit

Dance Dance Revolution (Bemani Pocket video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. I can't find any reliable sources that cover these games. It's possible that non-English print sources do exist. I'd imagine that older Japanese magazines, for example, do cover them. So no prejudice against recreating the article if sources are located in the future. Thibbs (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2015 (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.

January 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Girl edit

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

No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, neither in article nor in web searches. Lots of blogs, deviantart, and anime wikis though. Possible original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy/Move to Draftspace, as bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franbunnyffxii (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.[reply]
    The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion, original research, or fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Franbunnyffxii: If you want, we can WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.

This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franbunnyffxii: It is not at all a matter of opinion. It is a matter of of Notablity, which requires evidence: e.g. you or anyone else providing a couple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, such as a book (not a comic book), news feature, article by a renowned artist or pop-culture scholar, or something that wasn't posted by an anonymous user on a website that profits from promoting anime fandom. Wikias like you mentioned are user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.
It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?

↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)

Furthering the question of validity of Wikia

What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?

What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin

Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However, reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I admit that this article needs some work, I'm opposed to deleting it outright. This is a topic that I feel deserves coverage. Bensci54 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Animalparty, it's WP:VALUABLE, not WP:ILIKEIT. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Franbunnyffxii, what the article needs is more sources like this one: The Anime Machine, a book on anime. When I searched it for "bunny", there were 5 references. You could look for game reviews or descriptions of famous characters (in books and magazines, not fan sites). Ideally one that discusses bunny ears in some depth, or at least as part of the moe + animal trope. If you can find 3 or 4 more references like the book, that should be enough evidence for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no objection to userfying, and would encourage Franbunnyffxii to do some real research on the topic. Cite a textbook on Anime history, not a video game manual, and hold back all of your opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. The question is not of existence, but notability. If after months of incubation, all that can be produced is a list of fictional characters that have bunny ears, but no secondary sources that address the question of "what does it mean?", "who cares?", or "why bunnies?", then we'll be back to this same discussion. Again, see Existence ≠ Notability and Existence does not prove notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per others. We can wait until notability is demonstrated on the draft. APerson (talk!) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire edit

AfDs for this article:
Myriam Joire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person which makes a potentially valid claim of notability, but fails to adequately source it — as written, this relies entirely on primary sources, with not even one remotely reliable source cited in the entire article. And even a Google News search is turning up lots of coverage in blogs, and virtually none in the kind of sources it takes to get a person past our inclusion rules. First discussion was a no-consensus close, for the record — but that lack of consensus hinged on disagreement about whether the claim of notability was substantive at all, and failed to address the more significant issue (i.e. the lack of quality sourcing to support her notability). No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but the sourcing on display here is nowhere near the level it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable writer/ senior mobile editor/whatever at engadget[38] (also did a podcast there). Wonder if OP looked up "tnkgrl" which the subject is better known by: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. They appeared on TWiT [49] as well as various other podcasts here and there [50]. Google News has plenty of coverage for "myriam" and "tnkgrl" [51] (tnkgrl). Used to be a dev at dolby. -- dsprc [talk] 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that list of sources, I'm still not seeing a wealth of publications that count as appropriately reliable sources that can confer notability on a WP:BLP. Wired is about the only acceptable source in the entire bunch, actually — and even it's a blurb which is nowhere near long or detailed enough to carry a person's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: TechCrunch, Ars Technica, Hackaday and GigaOm are reliable sources. As for notability, Joire was Senior Editor for mobile at engadget (AOL) where they wrote hundreds of articles for years. Their hardware hacking activities have been covered by numerous sources and their position with Pebble has gained even more coverage and notoriety.[52] Google News provides plenty of sources as well and is linked at the top of every AfD. But, I guess PC Magazine, The Inquirer, Barron's, Fast Company, NPR, The Daily Telegraph, EE Times (where Joire is seemingly notable enough to directly question Qualcomm Senior VP about her assertions[53]) are all just fly-by-night operations as well. -- dsprc [talk] 12:47, 9 February 2015 (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.

January 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Superman: The Video Game edit

Lego Superman: The Video Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source to back up the claim that even once this video game might've been in development. A Google search brought up not a single valid website or article that would suggest that at one point it might've been considered being made. Soetermans. T / C 22:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's a few Flash games and a small reference at the end of Lego Batman, but that's it, nothing even remotely resembling a reliable source. This GameSpot forum thread is possibly the origin of this article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 26 January 2015 (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.

January 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Eve Online edit

List of ships in Eve Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial listing of items only relevant to ingame play. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:IINFO --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom - leave this to game wikis Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gbawden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is more suited to game wikis. There seems to be little encyclopedic that we can say about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This info is relatively useless to an outsider, and there is very little published material to support its notability. Nosaj544 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2015 (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.

January 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey edit

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A casual puzzle game released this past Saturday, without the independent reliable sources that might distinguish it from the tens of thousands of others it so closely resembles. Fails WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's limited coverage/reviews among a few tech/Android-specific sites, but not enough to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Enough" isn't the word I'd use. If reliable sources exist for this game, I couldn't find them amidst the blast of SEO spam. —Cryptic 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Android software article of unclear notability, lacking reliable references. One is from the developer, and the other has no stated editorial policy, in any case, one review is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (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.

January 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brock (Pokémon) edit

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

Yet another biography of fictional character that Is 90% unreferenced. Yes, it has a critical reception section that has some refs, but it's very short, and thus failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The reception is valuable and could be merged to List of Pokemon characters, or another relevant article, but the remaining 90% of content does not belong here (it is already much better covered at a relevant wikia article. ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Yet another reason Wikipedia isn't taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectivemerge to List of Pokémon characters per nom. Somewhat on the fence with this one. I was leaning towards a weak keep, but then I realized that he hasn't really made much of an impact. There is some reception, but I don't think it's really enough for a separate article. He could instead warrant a longer section in the aforementioned link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm on the fence here as well. On one hand, it could definitely use some cleanup. On the other hand, its looks like two separately published books discuss him in regards to his real-world relationship to Japanese culture. That could be argued to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Pokémon characters, I don't see enough notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of Pokémon anime characters is already nearing WP:TOOLONG. The Misty (Pokémon) article shows that enough refs likely exist if someone does the research (especially if done by someone who can read Japanese), given that Block plays a bigger part in the five Pokémon series, seventeen movies, six video game series, etc. At the worst, Merge with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I really strongly doubt that insufficient coverage exists for one of the most important characters in arguably one of the most famous, if not the most famous, anime series in the Western world. The article already shows the analysis of the character exists in printed sources, and it's very likely that there's more, both in English and Japanese (and possibly other languages as well?). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major character from possibly the most well known anime in the western world. Yes, the article is not well cited, but this could be improved. Improve the article as it is definitely notable, rather than forcing anyone who wants to write a good article to start from scratch. Kavidun (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find myself swayed by Satellizer's stance. There's already some coverage in there, and there's bound to be more considering the subject. Keep, but add some clean up tags. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sure there is a lot of references can be found. Even if those are lacking, the primary source could be used which is the anime itself to probably give enough substance to make it worthwhile considering in how many episodes he has been and not to forget the movies.(Just thinking of going over 800 episodes does send a shiver down my spine) However, the thing that is mostly lacking and that is the case with almost all the pokemon articles. Are willing serious editors that are willing to stick a huge bit of free time in re-working these articles in a better more sourced shape. NathanWubs (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brock is a major character and deserves his own page. I'm sure sources could be found that would make this pages' standing more firm. Bensci54 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep in mind this is not a vote, but a discussion, and so far I am not seeing any valid counteraguments. Rather than saying "WP:ITSIMPORTANT and therefore there must be more reliable sources", it would be nice if somebody pointed to a single reliable source that the article is not using... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal that there is already a small amount of sources available, and that said sources (Print Media) indicate that there's likely to be more out there, is, in fact, a valid stance. These discussions are based on their potential rather than just their current status. I can do some digging for sources to be more persuasive, sure, but I don't think its accurate to discount this stance wholesale. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 28 January 2015 (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.
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. Discussion said that redirect is not necessary Shii (tock) 05:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game) edit

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a yet to be published video game, can't find release date, it's WP:TOOSOON. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plenty of coverage, but it's all about the announcement from 2013. No news since. Anything that needs to be said can be sourced and put in Shadow of the Beast. Not a useful search term on its own if there's nothing at the location. Lacks significant coverage in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there really not any coverage, with all of this game's releases and ports? Furthermore, it strikes me as rather awkward to delete the original, but have articles for 2, 3, and the remake. If getting rid of it is the only option, I propose we rework the article into either a series article, or merge it to the remake. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The delete nomination is for the remake that hasn't been released yet (nor does it have a release date)...so we couldn't merge it to the remake... The original and 2 + 3 aren't up for deletion. Or did I misunderstand your post? Vrac (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread the nomination and Czars comment and though the nomination was for the original. Nevermind, ignore that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shadow of the Beast#Remake ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have coverage beyond the announcement. I'm skeptical that this would be a useful redirect, especially given that it will presumably one day become obsolete. But I guess a redirect is alright if it's necessary for consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good reason not to create the redirect since while it may eventually become obsolete (likely when it becomes notable enough for a separate article) it will, at this time, provide people searching for the remake with relevant info about it. it should be noted that there is a list of reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD And potential future obsolescence as one of them, nor do I think it should be--65.94.255.73 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ever going to search Wikipedia for "Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)". Anyone looking for information will search for "Shadow of the Beast" and be taken to the appropriate article immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is not a useful search term and that there is no reason to redirect, even if it's cheap czar ⨹ 21:54, 24 January 2015 (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.

January 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Michig (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Stock Exchange edit

Cricket Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article has no references and lacks notability. It is about a defunct temporary website that had, at best, only peripheral relevance to cricket. Should be deleted because it is not a notable subject. Jack | talk page 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination--Alza08 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. It would be very difficult to establish any notability for this website. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (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.

January 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boppin' edit

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

Not notable, no sourcing found (reviews, articles, etc.). Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The creator's page is up for deletion (Jennifer Diane Reitz). This could probably be redirected into her article and then we could consider whether or not the sources for the game and website (Happy Puppy), paired with the JDR sources would make her pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. I think that individually there are good reasons to be worried that the articles for JDR and this game would fail notability guidelines, but I think that if we lump the pages together then we'd have about one good page that would pass. I'd actually prefer to have this all together under the name of their programming group Accursed Toys, but then the info about JDR just wouldn't really fit well in that article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At a glance, there aren't enough sources to justify a standalone article. (I don't remember why I originally thought the article was a good idea.) A redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz seems appropriate if that article survives AfD. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2015 (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.
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. KTC (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijuland Battles edit

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

I tagged this as a speedy on promotional grounds, but that was declined. I cannot see, however, any claim for notability here, let alone verification of such a claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually a recreation after an initial deletion on promotional grounds - I Prod'd that on the same grounds and was declined. This article is an unreferenced promotion (excluding references to company website) of a yet to be released game from a non-notable company. It is not clear but that might be the companies first product.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason and deletion/recreation history. This is in fact the second yet to be released game from the company.:

The Fall of Nemesis: Clash of the Kaijujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. Not seeing any reviews or other independent, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2015 (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.
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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius, the Hand of Noxus edit

Darius, the Hand of Noxus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted or redirected to League of Legends, this is fan content that should be included in the League of Legends wiki, not Wikipedia. Non-notable video game character. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (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.
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 redirect to 3D Realms#As Apogee Software. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hocus Pocus (video game) edit

Hocus Pocus (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with "sources available, can be purchased still", but no proof of sources was given and being available for purchase is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Needs some help from WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [54]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing against WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [55][56][57][58] and an appearance in an old magazine [59]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 3D Realms. Best known as an Apogee (3D Realms) game unless someone digs up some offline sources. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there's nothing sourced to merge to its parent. It'll only be worth a mention if we can find more coverage, but it remains a good search term. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (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.

January 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diane Reitz edit

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Diane Reitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. All sources are WP:PRIMARY or do not mention her. Her three webcomics are not notable, nor is the site. Last AFD was nine years ago and resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've fixed a few of the cites and she is mentioned in some academic texts and other works. ([60], [61]) I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I think that she'll probably squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that it'd probably be best to merge Happy Puppy into her article, though. It's such a brief article that it could easily be merged and redirected to the appropriate section. I'd advise this as opposed to vice-versa since JDR has received notice in the earlier mentioned academic texts for her other actions/works, so it'd make sense for her to have an article that incorporates info about Happy Puppy as opposed to an article about the site that had information about her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in spite of good efforts by Tokyogirl79. I looked at the main sources currently used in the article; while it appears Ms. Reitz is mentioned in several high quality independent sources, it is only in passing. I do not see high quality sources that treat her as the central focus, so (unless we have missed some significant works) she does not meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peteforsyt: What do you think about merging this together with Happy Puppy? I think that together they could make for a decent article that passes notability guidelines as a whole. She created the website with her two domestic partners but she's always been the face/name of the company as a whole for the most part. I think I'll try to do a test merge of information to see how this looks. I won't redirect the main article for Happy Puppy until there's a consensus though, as I don't want it to get deleted if this closes as delete for JDR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super gung-ho on keeping this, I mostly just want to make sure that this merge is taken into consideration so that if this is deleted and it gets contested, we can say that it was considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Boppin' is up for deletion. That could probably be redirected to this article as well, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not overwhelmingly happy with the sourcing on the page, but there's enough there to pass notability guidelines. I think that if we lump together the article for Boppin' and Happy Puppy together with JDR's article, there is enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole. I'd actually prefer for this all to be in an article under the group's name of Accursed Toys since Happy Puppy and Boppin' were technically released by the group, but the information about JDR wouldn't fit neatly in that article and part of the sources about her are needed to really help push notability. It's not the strongest keep and I do think that this should probably be revisited in the future if notability guidelines grow more strict (which is one of the few givens on Wikipedia), but for now she seems to pass notability guidelines. It's not the strongest keep but I think that if we get rid of the individual pages and make this the main article for everything, it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:55, 31 January 2015 (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.
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. keep ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unreal characters edit

List of Unreal characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. The Unreal series is notable, but that doesn't mean its characters are. Λeternus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a WP:SPLIT from Unreal (series), which at present just has a link to this list. So at most this is getting merged, not deleted, though it's standard practice to keep such separate lists when they are too long to fit in the parent article. It's up to editors on this topic to decide how practical that is. Finally, it's nonsensical to claim that any information about the characters from a notable video game series is unverifiable; does the nominator think this list is a hoax? One could generate at least a bare bones yet accurate list just from playing the game(s), even without consulting any of the product manuals or third-party game guides that undoubtedly exist. I also can't even imagine how a video game series could be notable without any of the requisite secondary sources (such as critical reviews) discussing its characters at all. So maybe "fails...WP:V" was just a typo and the nominator meant something else. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This level of detail on fictional/game characters borders on copyright violation. The game paid good money to artists to create them. Do we have the right to republish their work for our own entertainment? BayShrimp (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this particular instance, I highly doubt the company is adverse to the free advertizing. Pax 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe Unsplit: By no means is detail in an encyclopedia copyright infringement for a video game unless the words themselves were taken straight from text in/about the game. However, there's only one source, and that's a wiki about the game, and I haven't been able to find anything worth mentioning about the characters past that. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) After looking over Hakken's sources, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. While the article could use some cleanup, there's plenty of sources that I didn't find, and that was the basis for my deletion !vote. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm inclined to say this is not notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Hakken (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1-6 look fine, the GameSpot review is iffy (seems to be user-created), 8 and 9 are good, TV Tropes isn't the most reliable source around. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 12:13, 30 January 2015 (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.
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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeslaughter edit

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

Completely unreferenced; attempting to search for references using Google seems to yield no notable results. I found a bunch of IGN/G4TV-type "hub" pages with no articles about the game on those respective websites, and mentions of the game on a few tiny blogs and forums. The only actual mention of the game in any semi-noteworthy source was this AskMen article. Basically, the game appears to be non-notable, and attempts to find reliable sources mentioning the game have failed. V2Blast (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the way of coverage in reliable sources that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one is complex because this is only one of a half dozen or so games that link to Bloodlust. None have much content, most have no references. The original Bloodlust site is gone (as of early 2014) but I just added a link to the wayback machine entry. There is a page for Bloodlust on the gaming wiki, so the entire history is not lost. It would be good to copy what is here to that wiki before deletion (which I think is the right choice, thus delete). LaMona (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A user can request Wikipedia:Userfication and have the content moved to his or her personal pages after the afd concludes. This may be an option if you are interested in moving the content to a different wiki.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The askmen ref mentioned above is brief coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any further significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (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.

January 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 merge to Richman (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richman 4 edit

Richman 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a speedy with the assertion "content is wrong and imnecessary". The game does technically exist (although the year appeared to be wrong, which I've removed) and since it doesn't technically fall under any real speedy criteria I'm listing it for AfD. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richman 4 , also named as "da fu weng 4" , is a famous and classic windows game in great China area. The game is only published by Chinese language, so it is not well known by non-Chinese people. Please reference this link. [[72]] I think the article name can be changed to da fu weng 4 if it is approved by most people. Thanks. Daiquping (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh god the nostalgia, I used to play the sh*t out of 5 and 6. However in the AfD department it would be hard to save this pretty old (1998) game, which would need to dig up older printed Chinese (mostly from Taiwan) materials. Via Google Books I can find [73] noting "Richman 4 was a glorious apex and a turning point for the series" and [74] having a Richman article (although looks to be more focused on the whole series). The online sources I can think of reaches to at most like 5 [75], and the really solid ones don't start until 7 [76]. Peculiarly though, note that this is the only article on anything Richman in enwp, nothing on the whole series or any of the other seven games until 8 (and online and mobile ports). It might be also possible to save this in the form of a merged Richman (series), with the news that a Richman 9 might be coming out [77]. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS No point referencing zh:大富翁4 because that was WP:NOTGUIDE like crazy (in fact also 3 through 8). But I did find a source [78] via their Richman article, that has content for until 6 and lists two awards for 4 specifically. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps you'd be best to make a series wide article and merge it in, if it is on the edge between definitely notable and maybe not? JTdaleTalk~ 01:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No notable issue. Keep as a stub. Daiquping (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Richman (series) article that yarouin just made makes this article unnecessary. If the series article grows enough to make length a concern, then maybe we should consider a split, but until then, I see no reason to insist that a one two sentence article get its own separate page. Forbes72 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2015 (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.
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Morris (voice actress) edit

Heather Morris (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable per WP:NACTOR. Had 3 acting credits between 2002-2003 LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per nom. Also, a biography shouldn't only be sourced to IMDb. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Fails notability.Wobzrem (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:47, 22 January 2015 (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.

January 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Salem edit

Town of Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this article and deleted copyright violations and marked an unreferenced statement. After evaluating it further I am concerned about the topic's notability, and I do not believe this page satisfies WP:NGAME. The page has never had references to independent sources, and I've tried looking for them and came up empty. The only references to the game I have found are either Kickstarter references or posts by the publisher itself, neither of which can be considered reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. I'm not entirely opposed to merging this content into Mafia (party game), as an alternative, although I'm not sure that even this is appropriate, because there are quite a decent number of games based on Mafia and covering them all would tend to detract from that article. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite being a kickstarter backer of this game, I personally don't think it is notable in the least. No coverage I can find anywhere. JTdaleTalk~ 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, which is unfortunate as I play Town of Salem online and it is a great game, but there really are no other options. There is this and this in terms of coverage, but unless more sources are found thry aren't enough. Merging to Mafia (party game) may also work. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I performed a Google search and got some coverage. The game was one of the entrants at the International Games Festival, and an independent review here. The problem with the second link is that I'm not too sure whether it is a blog or a professional one. EthicallyYours! 12:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mafia (party game) - And including this reference for its brief description within the page. Everything else should be deleted as it does not meet the criteria of WP:NGAME, as Shirik stated. Jd02022092 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EthicallyYours! 08:59, 24 January 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society (video game) edit

Society (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems that this article does not meet the notability requirements. This game was said to be in development in 2011, but apparently has not been released (yet). Fred Johansen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep. Doesn't meet notability guidelines; unable to locate any reliable sources talking about this topic. Obviously didn't look hard enough initially. Was able to locate reliable sources talking about it. APerson (talk!) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC); edited 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unsure of the stances above are due to confusion on notability criteria, or a failure of WP:BEFORE, but there is definitely significant coverage from multiple, third party, reliable sources on the subject, which is what the WP:GNG requires. Below are sources that cover it in detail, and have a consensus for being reliable by WikiProject Video Games at WP:VG/S:
  1. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/society-e3-2005-impressions/1100-6126078/
  2. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/stardock-announces-society/1100-6125372/
  3. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/society/614757p1.html
  4. http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-society-first-look
Being in development hell or being cancelled is not a valid criteria for deletion, so I really don't follow any deletion stances... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 13 January 2015 (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.

January 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liana K edit

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

This is a vanity article about a non-noteworthy person whose only claim to fame or notability is her husband's accomplishments. Most pf the previously listed BLP sources are her own Twitter and blog-based posts. Much of the BLP is unsourced, and most of the references are too close to the subject or have been self-published by the subject for their own blatant self-promotion. MBPLY (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & please close because of this. (Note: Liana Kerzner has some pretty obsessive haters, including a certain ex-friend who even owns/owned a blog that seemed to be dedicated solely to hating her.) The article might use of some additional sources, though (which is not unlike just about every article), on things like the radio show. --302ET (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and speaking of that hate-blog, and the nominator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liana_K&diff=prev&oldid=641796211 (please delete that edit, for the obvious reasons). --302ET (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in question was created in 2006, and having been constantly improved since then, is a decent, but not spectacular article. Liana is a well know Canadian TV celebrity, having been co-host, as "Red" of Ed & Red's Night Party on Canadian Superstation CITY-TV and Canada's response to MTV, MuchMusic for at least a dozen years. The attempts to delete her entry seem to have little to do with the quality of the entry, but more about retaliation for her views on Gamergate controversy and problems with at least one persistent stalker has caused her entry here to be vandalized a number of times. (see article rev. history). farrellj (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Liana K is clearly an established media personality in Canada, and certainly, there are plenty of existing articles on local radio and television personalities, who are generally considered to rise to the level of WP:NOTABLE. Article could use better sourcing, but as other commenters have noted, this is an endemic problem on Wikipedia. And please note: User:MBPLY, who has created this AFD, is a new and likely single-purpose account (note Special:Contributions/MBPLY) who has vandalized this article in several of their edits and left a link to an attack site. WP:BLP is pretty clear about this kind of thing. Concur with nixing this AFD per 302ET's recommendation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the policies already mentioned. The OP is an WP:SPA who seems to be trying to WP:RGW which is not a valid reason for this AFD. MarnetteD|Talk 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article doesn't even mention that she's married. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is clearly WP:NOTHERE and asking for deletion solely due to the views of the subject they disagree with. Hosting multiple shows on national television clearly bestows notability on the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Any statement I could make has already been covered. This was pretty clearly done out of spite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2015 (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.
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. —Cryptic 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Online 3 edit

Metal Gear Online 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, since none of the references provided show any sign that the online multiplayer part of the upcoming video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain will be called Metal Gear Online 3. Metal Gear Online was an actual spin-off, also avaible separately from main game MGS4, if that happens later one, we can have an article for it in due time. Soetermans. T / C 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sources that are notable. We don't even have a Metal Gear Online 2 article. If the apparently commonly abbreviated MGO3 doesn't appear under that name in any of the sources, then we can conclude that this article isn't the right place to put it. ~Mable (chat) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication that the content in the article will indeed be called this. I'd argue for redirect, but I don't really think its a viable search term. Any content/sources could be used to flesh out its information at Phanton Pain though. But as long as it doesn't have a real name, and is largely sourced by first party twitter posts, it shouldn't be a standalone article. (Though I'm all for recreation down the line, it's just too soon at this time.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the first Metal Gear Online was the online part of Subsistence, the Snake Eater expanded edition for the PlayStation 2. For MGS4 it was also called Metal Gear Online and released separately (which has its own article), the servers of which have shutdown in June 2012. Rrp13121989 (talk · contribs) linked the first Online to Snake Eater and changed the actual Metal Gear Online to 2 in the Metal Gear template, which I've reverted. While Kojima has stated Metal Gear Online is in development, it isn't clear whether this will be part of The Phantom Pain or released separately, but one thing is for sure: it won't be called Metal Gear Online 3. --Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing in this article is abysmal; there isn't even a source for the supposed name. This should be deleted. --TS 13:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourced to primary source tweets—nothing to merge. No indication that "MGO3" is an official or even unofficial name, so it's not a useful redirect. The emphasis the nom puts on whether the game is actually called MGO3 doesn't matter so much as whether the topic would be notable by another name (article can always be renamed). Our main question is whether the topic is notable. Even so, it won't, and there are no important sources or text to merge. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Rugby edit

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. IMO 9,000 users for a game just don't warrant an article. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:27, 16 January 2015 (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.

January 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 speedy redirect to List of Assassin's Creed characters#Arno Dorian. Speedy close/legit supervote because I think redirection to the character list to be uncontroversial and a full AfD to be unecessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Dorian edit

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

Is a seperate page needed for this? Can it not be included in the main Assasin's Creed wiki? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Assassin's Creed. Submitter might also wish to AfD Francois De la Serre (mentioned in the Arno Dorian article).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Раціональне анархіст: I will do so if this one is deleted. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (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.

January 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne edit

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire page violates WP:Gamecruft and does not satisfy criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:LISTN and a lot more. Main article about the game covers in too much detail already. ansh666 08:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only fails WP:LISTN, but would fail WP:GAMECRUFT as part of the parent article, so its not even worth a merge/redirect... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 5 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion/2015&oldid=706459415"