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

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]

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]

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]

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]

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 19 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) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The company's website is no longer available. I could not find the company's Chinese-language name even after checking archived versions of the company's website like this one from 2010. The company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: N. I found a mention of one of their consoles in a PCMag article and a few mentions in a book, but nothing more. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:46, 21 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]

Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

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

Fails company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.

The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:

https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible

https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc

https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter

The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.

Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)

My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.

This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.

Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/

https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/

https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?

https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.

Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of your argument is threefold:

1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.

2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.

3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.

If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party (disambiguation)

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

Does not need to exist — a clear-cut violation of WP:PARTIAL Loytra (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. Loytra (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, basically all of them are partial disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks more like a poorly put together game list, which isn't necessary since we already have a series article at Mario Party that lists them all out. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JoshuaAuble (talk) (edits) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Mario Party - I think a redirect could be useful since I don't see it would violate WP:G14 since it links to to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) (Changed to delete, per comment below)[reply]

But it's not disambiguating anything though, that's the problem. And why in the world would anyone use that as a search term? Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot that there are only two articles that could be refered to as 'Mario Party' and the rest, not so much. Changed to Delete JuniperChill (talk)

Delete. Not a useful search term, plus not a dab page. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; all the entries are listed in the main article for the franchise, and most are partial title matches. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (oddly organized) partial title list with no practical use. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 14:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MK at your service. 10:09, 20 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]

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]

8XR (game engine)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. Created by a sockmaster (prior to block, not G5 eligible). I found that nearly every source used made no mention of 8XR at all. The two remaining sources are interviews/promo/non-independent. WP:VG/S's reliable source search has zero results. General efforts to search up any other coverage, reliable or not, for an "8XR engine" found essentially nothing. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't access one of the sources (it's a dead link), but the one I can access, while it is a suspiciously promotive interview, does have a significant amount of non-interview content. It's like the first half of the article. You can maybe argue it's not reliable (it does seem suspicious), but it can't be immidiately dismissed as just an interview. Also googled and could not find sources, so I'll vote Delete if no one can find any more sources than this. (given we have 1 dubious source and an unarchived dead link) Mrfoogles (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the top half isn't really an interview (though highly promotional). But there's no way I'd view that blockchain site as a reliable source. They are a paid group blog without apparent oversight. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any reliable sources can be found, given that the sources available are (1) unreliable (see https://blockster.com/membership) or (2) inaccessible and unarchived, and also odd given the earliest available blog post on that website is from 2023 Mrfoogles (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources given to indicate notability are deadlinks/primary. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nomination. I can't find any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 18 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]

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, [1] [2] 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]

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]

Aiden Pearce

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

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user. I'll suggest it by merging/redirecting it into Watch Dogs (video game). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 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!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list. Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be a bad idea, but looking at the article of the first game, it looks like Watch_Dogs characters (main or side) are not particularly beloved by critics. I can't even find any specific characters mentioned in that GA outside of its uncited plot section, which really suggests to me that characters of this franchise are not subject to much analysis. I have not done a dive for sources though; if you can find any sources specifically about Watch_Dogs characters, that would be interesting. It seems like a difficult project either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post. Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues. Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews. The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral after more sources have been dug up. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Maplestrip. Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article. There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~But his hat is so iconic!~~ Redirect per Mable. None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole. No development info. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though most above are saying that the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]([10]small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review. MK at your service. 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me), the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it. Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section. MK at your service. 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really an argument; Nilin could be notable after digging per WP:BEFORE and not because of that game reviews. Comparing other articles isn't helpful. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through these. (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced. Article praises the character and repeats that he gets "reintroduced" in this novel, but there's nothing else here. (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N. (3) IGN, this looks like a really good one! (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign? This article is actually about something. (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such. (6) Petrick Kepleck (GiantBomb), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter. Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden. (7) NME, I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically. There's some stuff here but not much. (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N. All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here. Shame none of it was used. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff. Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN. Confusingly, when I open this article, it redirects me to a Dutch translation with a different author. Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops. I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here, but Forbes contributors like Tassi are generally recommended not to use as Forbes doesn't apply editorial oversight to their works. Tassi also has some infamy in journalistic circles which doesn't help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Maplestrip. The above also isn't convincing me, given it's mainly reviews and valnet. And normally I like Valnet but you need some meat to go with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most redirect !votes seem to be at least partially based on None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character. That, however, is explicitely not required to establish notability according to WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course something meaningful and fitting for an encyclopedia on the article's subject still needs to be contained in those secondary sources with a different main topic like e.g. the game as a whole. Daranios (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have a reasonable reception section without regress to Valnet sources, thus the article in its current form already fullfills WP:WHYN and therefore WP:N, even though the plot probably needs trimming to balance. In addition we have the Vice web article, which incidentally does have Aiden Pearce as its main topic, and more secondary sources have been listed and sorted above. Again, some of the do have the character as the main topic. In addition, there's a brief paragraph of commentary on Aiden Pearce in this academic publication. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice is the only situational source that could be a bit decent. However, I don't think we already have a "reasonable reception section" because of article being bloated with game reviews and plenty of game-guide content? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 18:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About being bloated, I guess we agree that the plot summary content currently is not balanced with the reception section. But that's a problem that can be solved by normal editing and is therefore not a reason for deletion. And we do have a reception section which in my view does not consist of game-guide content. The fact that the sources making up the reception section are mostly game reviews does not invalidate their use, as the content which has been taken from them here is direct commentary on the character, i.e. the topic of the article. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One problem with "Per X" !votes is that if X changes her opinion mid-discussion, as happened here, those Per X !votes become ambiguous or ill-defined. Please stick to substantive arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own !vote has moved to "neutral" after more sources were dug up, but I still think the sources are weak. I would like to know if @Shooterwalker: and @Axem Titanium: still think so too, as per the relisting comment. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to adjust my vote to neutral, with a chance to revisit this discussion in the future. I am still not sure if there is WP:SIGCOV but I admit there are some improvements, which I hope will continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still staying by redirect as my vote. I feel the subject matter on its own is too weak, and there's really nothing here that can't be discussed in the body of the main article. While there are some characters with single game appearances, one needs to consider if what's being said illustrates them separate of that work or not, and that's not being indicated here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also sticking to redirect here, the provided sources don't convince me that the article passes GNG. The best sources here are Giant Bomb and Vice, and that isn't really sufficient. Plus, most of the commentary is just "Aiden Pearce is bad" which doesn't offer much nuance you can't put in the main game's reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate