Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Vii

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small Worlds (presentation)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Raph Koster. toweli (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to blatantly fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petpet Park

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

While I played this game as a child and thoroughly enjoyed it, it is sadly non-notable. I've found no sources that weren't passing mentions: if this discussion fails to turn up SIGCOV, then it should be redirected to Neopets, which it is a spinoff of (though a sourced mention should be added to the body of the Neopets article) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neopets per nom, fails GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skibidi Toilet episodes

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

The article seems to have had numerous issues when created and nonsense text, little sources have been found and I question whether the article's topic is even notable. TwinBoo (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of non-notable youtube videos (while Skibidi Toilet is of itself notable, none of the videos have individually received any significant coverage yet with the possible exception of the first one). In addition, while the descriptions are actually mostly accurate by my recollection, they should not really be here. If one wanted to do a "plot summary", they should put it into the main article Skibidi Toilet. Possibly consider Redirect as an option.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bab shakkk do do do do do do do do Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 23:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how your !vote is just nonsense when your signature is, well... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop. Constructive comments only. (That includes writing a real rationale with your !vote.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per WP:NLIST, the individual elements in a list don't need to show notability, if the overall topic is notable. Yes the article needs works, yes more content can be split out the other article - but if the series itself is notable, there's no reason why a list can't exist for reasons of notability. there's sources in the main article that can be used to verify this (and I'll move some across later), but "not notable" doesn't apply to lists like this. Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it meet NLIST though? You comment doesn't explain, and notability isn't inherited. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, Lists, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a ridiculous "article" that only belongs on Wikidata. Nothing of value will be lost in deletion. Assimilate them as a summary like "episodes are titled by their number" and confine this otherworldly prattle to its rightful place. Everybody, it's time to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are responsible for our future generations and the lifeblood of this country.^[Joke] Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has changed a bit—its state before nomination included one-sentence descriptions and "*top rated*" on certain episodes as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Without any actual descriptions, this is just an indiscriminate list of dates and episodes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources to do not support documenting this topic in this level of detail. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass

AfDs for this article:

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

Pendergrass seems to be just under notability, with a partial nomination in a small award and few roles.

Pendergrass has voiced several side characters in multiple works in the Yo-Kai Watch franchise and characters in the PBS Space Racers series. He does not seem to have had any other roles. He states that he wrote several jingles for the Yo-Kai Watch franchise.

As part of a group of actors, he was likely nominated for Best Vocal Ensemble in an Anime Feature Film/Special by Behind the Voice Actors, a smaller source which is mostly a database but does produce the awards as editorial content. Details on the award are a bit muddled, as IMDB states that it was the 2017 award and gives the actor names, but their website states that it was the 2016 award, though the archived version does not display the actor names for the movie awards. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Video games, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary coverage, 1 major role, and maybe won a minor award, doesn't meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NACTOR. --Mika1h (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avimator

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of these old non-notable software articles. I usually find WP:PROD a good tool for dealing with them. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs (demogroup)

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

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

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

Gnasher Shotgun

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

I feel a huge problem here is that there's no indication of this thing having any impact or importance outside of its base series or any enduring legacy of said concept. A good paragraph devoted to it is basically gameplay tweaks that mean nothing to anyone that hasn't played Gears, and doesn't provide any reasonable grounds to be a standalone article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:MERGEREASON. Better covered in the context of its respective game(s), in a much more efficient, condensed manner. Current article is bloated and drawn out to an insane degree. It would be very easy to cover most in a much more focused paragraph that didn't branch out into these tangents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gears of War: per nom and I don't see a problem of WP:WEIGHT by doing that, since this article is significantly smaller than the main one. I see no reason for this to be a standalone article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Eurogamer article here is quite impressive, unfortunately that appears to be the only major coverage for the gun, with the other articles being announcements of balance patches or minor coverage. I likely wouldn't have created this article if I had only these sources available so I will have to agree it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even with some reception, it provides more coverage and context if we include this as part of the overall reception of the game and series. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football Madness

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

Does not appear to have any sources to back up its notability. GamerPro64 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Football. GamerPro64 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of PlayStation games (A–L) - Official UK PlayStation Magazine reviewed the game in issue 98 per this guide in issue 108 of every game reviewed in OPM up to that point, I was unable to find a copy of that issue to see how in-depth the review was and the guide only gives a score and brief summary. I was unable to find any other coverage on Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waxworker MK at your service. 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waxworker. I did an extensive search on Newspapers.com, Both Naps Team (the game's developer website) and Phoenix Games website (the game's publisher) but ultimately found only this [1]. It being a budget game might explain why there is almost nothing on it. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Would be useful to find sources to prove its WP:N and fix its WP:OR. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Date with Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andromeda Software Development

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu]; "Andromeda" is mentioned 25 times, but in reference to the Norwegian demo group, not the Greek group that is the subject of the article. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Greece. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FreshGames

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

Created by a mostly single-purpose editor and written like an advertisement. Could not find SIGCOV to support WP:NCORP being passed at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gamezebo and AppAdvice are the only mentions of this company I can find, neither which are RS. The game awards listed seem non-notable. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GameZebo actually is a reliable source, though I am not sure if the source you found is actually significant coverage. I'd have to see it. Nevertheless even if it is, that's only one source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a preview for a game [2], not really about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then yeah, it's very much not significant coverage. Notability of companies isn't inherited from their games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bizjournals, colombus underground; probably WP:ATD redirect to one of the games? IgelRM (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of an obvious target between either article of their games that exist, I'd say this is a delete rather than redirect, as said redirect would be unhelpful to readers. Redirect tends to be when there's a clear single target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage about the company itself, and very minimal coverage about its games/products. WP:INHERITORG C F A 💬 16:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Abzû, their most successful game. As it is, the sources don't meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Sparrow

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP with insufficient significant coverage. Ian Dallas, the studio's creative director, may be notable per WP:NARTIST and various sources covering him, but the studio itself doesn't seem to be, and the page was made by an account that made barely any other edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to What Remains of Edith Finch as per WP:ATD as their best known and most notable game. As a company, none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Road

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP; the sources are largely about Wanderstop rather than giving significant coverage to the studio. Could be redirected or merged to said game as an alternative to deleting. Either way, I suggest SALTing/protecting the page to prevent recreation, as it has been deleted once already for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect again: If I understand correctly, this draft was moved to AFD-ed mainspace by the creator themselves. @BarntToust: Try to avoid this by submitting your draft in the future as this situation is bad conduct. IgelRM (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self moving a draft to mainspace is perfectly allowed, and it allows for articles to be left unfinished for a while while they're being created, which appears to be what occurred. All protocols were being followed here, besides, obviously, the article failing notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: But if intentionally doing so after a successful AFD seems rather bold? Article for Creation appears exactly suited check if the notability issue can be resolved. Well, sorry BarntToust if I'm missing something here. IgelRM (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to recreate an article after an AfD if you have discovered clear new sources that might invalidate the AfD result. I do think AfC would have been the right move and one would have to ask if there is a major COI issue here, but the whole moving draft to mainspace thing isn't in itself a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All well and duly noted. Good to keep in draft until further notability can be established. Probably move most current details into Wanderstor article. Cheers!

BarntToust (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it in draftspace is pointless if it is unclear whether it will ever be notable. Draftspace is for articles on notable subjects that are not yet finished. It seems it will be redirected, so the history will be saved if it is ever to be recreated. Otherwise it is best to store it locally on your device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Wanderstop), or perferably re-draftify, per nom. It's too early for a full article and the current article is mostly a repeat of Wanderstop, but it could become notable in the near future. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 06:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to draft it. It may be notable in the future, and I don't think it needs to necessarily re-direct to Wanderstop, or C418 or Davey Wreden for that matter. Too many good re-direct candidates for that to be plausible. (Karla Zimonja is already a re-direct). BarntToust (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wanderstop is the best target as it virtually completely overlaps for a redirect and the author may later recreate the draft in any way. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard Sniffer

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

The game was deproded with the rationale that it won awards, but this has no bearing on notability. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify and fill out a standalone article. It cites clearly user-generated reviews in the vast majority of the reception section rather than actual critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, there's not really anything else to add. The game isn't notable, and I don't see why it should have got deproded. λ NegativeMP1 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game won five XYZZY Awards and won two awards in the 2017 Interactive Fiction Competition, which are the two most notable competitions for this type of work, and thus distinguishes itself in its genre. The genre is obscure which accounts for the sparse supply of sources. If the subject does not warrant its own article then redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works to preserve history instead of deleting. --Bensin (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and as for sources, I added the review in The Short Game, which adding to Sarah Laskow's and Lynda Clark's reviews, totals the number to three in addition to the three at the Interactive Fiction Database. No sources contradict eachother. --Bensin (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Game does not appear to be a reliable source. In fact it admits that it is fan run, with one person in the About Us being "the only person with any real credentials", something that is obvious even from a quick browse of the site. This is not the kind of sourcing we want on Wikipedia. The ability to tell whether a source is reliable is required, as well as being able to judge what topic needs an article, and your recent articles have been less than stellar. For example, Clue (information)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are the articles static. I can't see your username in the history of Clue (information). If you are certain you know its flaws you are welcome to add to it and improve it. The Short Game has made content for over 10 years, and has produced over 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they lack experience now. Their body of work makes them pretty much experts, and they are certainly more experts than any junior reviewer writing for a large media corporation. --Bensin (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Their body of work makes them experts" there are many unreliable sources with a large body of work listed at WP:Perennial sources such as the Daily Mail, being long-running does not really have a bearing on reliability. But even if we assumed it counted as SIGCOV, that's only one piece of SIGCOV which is insufficient to pass GNG.

I am not sure if there is anything to improve there as the concept of a "clue" is not notable. If you think it is, you offered no real proof in that regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself considered Atlas Obscura to be SIGCOV, until I added the reference to The Short Game. Then you edited your statement above with an edit comment without rationale.[3] (It would have been better had you instead added a new post where you transparently stated that you had changed your mind and explained why, rather than editing an existing post to make it seem like that was your stance all along.) There's also the review by Lynda Clark. That makes three SIGCOV in addition to the rest of the sources, which all corroborate each other. Interactive fiction is a small art form and sources are inherently hard to come by, even for a game like this that won both of the two most prominent competitions for interactive fiction. If you still think sourcing is a problem, then I suggest you add {{Expert needed}} at the top of the article so it can be improved upon rather than deleted. Or request sources for any statement in the article that you think is unsourced and that a reader cannot verify and assess themselves (hint: there aren't any).

Regarding Clue (information) (a central concept in many games throughout history), feel free to improve it directly or point out weaknesses on that article's talk page. But that article is not relevant to this discussion here. --Bensin (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had there been zero significant coverage, I would have agreed with you, and I would not have created the article. But that is simply not the case. --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Interactive fiction. Buster Hudson appears to be a relatively known author by the sources. IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not going to be mentioned in the interactive fiction article, a redirect would not be very helpful. (And I doubt it should, the whole "notable works" section is already verging on listcruft). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is only a handful of IF games that is in the intersection of winning both IFC and XYZZY and they are worth mentioning. --Bensin (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works as an alternative to deletion. I think it's just below notability. Atlas Obscura is a reliable source per WP:AOARTICLES and although Medium.com is generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM, I think Clark qualifies as a "subject matter expert" since she is listed as "PhD Researcher in Interactive Fiction at Nottingham Trent University". Interactive Fiction Competition might be a notable award, but the fact it won doesn't alone count towards notability, it needs some coverage to go along with it. I just think two pieces of SIGCOV is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h and Bensin. I changed my vote to Delete as I find no notability, and the small mention that it gets in Interactive fiction is enough. MK at your service. 12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why you agree to a mention in the article Interactive fiction but oppose a redirect to that article? --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it doesn't need to be redirected to the article. It's mentioned in the Interactive fiction and I feel thats enough. MK at your service. 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Is there a reason why you think there should not be a redirect from The Wizard Sniffer to Interactive fiction? If there is a redirect, the edit history is preserved and the article can be easily improved by anyone if new sources emerge. If the article is deleted, there's a risk that someone not familiar with the process of undeleting articles will start from scratch rather than building on what already exists. --Bensin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think one or two sentences about Hudson can be incorporated on Interactive fiction based on the Atlas Obscura article. I partially did not say delete as preserving edit history may be convenient. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tiger Development

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

Non-notable videogame development company, seemingly, from the limited information I have found, a subcontractor the actual studio hires for certain tasks such as localization. The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Toys, and Companies. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company actually has a history of developing games back in the day, including Time Crisis Alpha for the PlayStation and an old King of the Hill game – but none of this adds up to any kind of notable press coverage. A passing mention at IGN ([4]) and small one in Kotaku ([5]) were the only truly reliable ones that popped up, and I don't think it passes WP:CORP. Nomader (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayward Realms

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

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

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

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

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [6] [7] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relentless Studios

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

Not sufficiently notable. Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games? IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Washington. IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name. It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible, which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release. Askaqp (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article. But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better? IgelRM (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amazon Games. Even if enough to meet GNG is found, this appears to be a NOPAGE situation where there's plenty of room to cover this in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate