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

Fields of Mistria

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

I'll fully admit this is on the edge, but the main sources used here, TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are essentially unreliable. The game only got 2 major reviews from RS, one from PCGamer and the other from The Escapist, and while it got numerous pieces of coverage from PCGamer, that counts as a single source as far as GNG is concerned. The other mentions the game had, such as in Kotaku, are just trivial coverage of announcements and don't include actual reviews of the game, leaving the amount of significant coverage below the bar for a typical game article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Gaming

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

Non-notable esports company. Created by the CEO or someone close (disclosed COI), relying almost entirely on press releases and sponsorship announcements (all non-independent) and unreliable sources. WP:VG/S's search has no real indepth independent coverage. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Noting that I came across this article based on a mention on Discord. I don't believe the references to be sufficient to show independent WP:SIGCOV. My searches for RS didn't add anything to push it over the bar either. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfiltered google results for "Tribe Gaming" primarily show promotional material; When looking in the "News" category, the only results are about gambling in Native American reservations. — BABR・talk 03:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net

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

A defunct website recently "in the news". Anecdotal evidence here doesn't appear to pass WP:NWEB. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I initially tried to redirect it due to only having extremely recent sources, but sources were added from 2019 and 2023 that shows it appears to pass SUSTAINED by having been mentioned repeatedly in the press. It was created in poor shape, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not an adequate deletion rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CityDisc

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

Doesn't seem WP:N. I found very few reliable sources of information for this chain. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Companies. C F A 💬 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some hits for this place on Swiss newspaper archives. Haven't done a more in depth search yet but here is one piece that isn't terrible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is more often spelled with a space or a hyphen (City Disc or City-Disc). This seems to be, or at least was, a not insignificant Swiss company. I added several sources to the page; there are a lot more hits but I find these three sources to be the best attesting of its notability: [1] [2] [3]

One of those sources is from Le Nouveau Quotidien as well which at the time was one of the only two non-regional standard Francophone newspapers in Switzerland (later Le Temps) so that probably satisfies the broad audience aspect of N:CORP, imo. I am not particularly well acquainted with the company notability criteria, however. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pokémon

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

This article, I believe, fails standards immensely. There is no inclusion criteria for this list, for a start, and with a franchise as large as Pokémon, it's unclear what makes the cut. Should releases of games be included? Release dates for consoles that host these games? When merchandising and crossovers are announced or released? Should anniversaries be commemorated? Should associated companies that are relevant have important fixtures included? I could go on, but this timeline is very indiscriminate in what it includes, and thus is very unhelpful to readers, as there is no clear idea of what is actually important to the franchise's history, whether it be in terms of release information or otherwise. Additionally, this timeline only covers major dates, and no actual historical background. This information is covered at the main Pokémon article already in far greater depth, with notable releases and developments covered there. There are already several infoboxes with release schedules for important subgroups as well that can be used at other articles with far greater aid to readability. Given all relevant info is covered at the parent article, and this list itself is incredibly unwieldy and impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context, this list feels incredibly unhelpful and redundant to readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, History, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator pointed out, it's not clear what the inclusion criteria here are. There's an entry for "Tenth anniversary of the Pokémon anime". Okay, should anniversaries for everything else also be included? Which ones? Fives and tens? This list is largely pointless; we already have articles for the games and for Pokémon as a franchise. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant to the already existing Pokemon series and List of Pokemon games articles. It's like a worse, bullet-point version of those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing clear inclusion criteria here, timeline can mean many things including game releases, anime or manga releases, store openings, etc. It falls under indiscriminate lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup; second choice merge as there's at least potential here. (Canvassing disclaimer: Saw this due to the nominator mentioning it on Discord.) Yes, there are some bad items on this list like anniversaries of unclear notability - just remove them? And yes, stronger inclusion criteria would also be nice. But none of these are reasons to delete. Having a clean, "bullet point version" of the main article that is strictly chronological rather than prose hopping between different media types can be a useful thing. The nominator seems to mention this when saying "covered in far greater depth in the main article" - well yes, that's the point, this is a clean links-only version that's easier to find stuff in, "Greater depth" isn't always desired. This article seems like a great start toward making such a resource. I dunno, in more "serious" topics, it's not uncommon to have both a simple table of Governors of Province X and the same info in more depth in "History of Province X" in prose. That's... fine. Both the list article and the prose article are useful; I'd say that this timeline is far less "unwieldly". SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I removed the anniversaries of unclear importance. And I again want to emphasize that I'm not saying the timeline is perfect, it's far from it, but that many of the complaints above sound like reasons to delete any timeline, e.g. "impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context" - the organization is the date it happened. That's it. There is no categorization other than again by date. That's how timelines work, and IMO that can be useful sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concerns are less so improvement, but that there are several large-scale problems that are difficult to resolve. I can definitely agree it may be decently useful in most other contexts, but Pokémon is such a wide franchise as to where determining what is actually useful to audiences is downright impossible because of how much goes on with it. It's easy enough to clean out anniversaries, but how do you choose what to include? If you choose to include important dates in development, then it just overlaps with the main Pokemon article in a worse context even more than it already is. If you choose to focus on game releases, then List of Pokémon video games covers that. If you focus on the anime, Pokémon (TV series) already has its own navigational boxes. If you focus on meshing them together, then that's just two lists randomly smushed together that have no real need being tacked on to each other when they're better covered separately. If you want to include more occasions, then what do you choose? Real world events? How do you determine which are notable enough to cover? Do you cover every single tournament and site pop-up? If you expand the scope to far, then it just becomes a list of everything vaguely Pokemon related that's occurred, which just falls under Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no real rhyme or reason to these all being in this timeline together that benefits the reader because these subjects are all so wildly random and not very substantial to the series' overall development. There's so many moving variables, and if you were to include everything, it would just be a more unwieldy version of the multiple easier to use lists. It's not like a lot of timelines where their information is valuable in the context of a timeline, as we have several other versions of this around the website already that are infinitely more readable and usable and have less problems with inclusion criteria, while being infinitely more helpful in terms of their navigational use and educational use. This list is just largely unnecessary and impractical, hence my argument for deletion here.

I will note on the canvassing concern- I had asked about this list in the Discord earlier today to get another opinion before I took any action on it, which was a discussion entirely unrelated to this AfD. I took care in not acknowledging or linking to this AfD after the fact in order to prevent potential problems, and if there were further actions to take beside that, then that's a mistake on my part, and I'll seek to improve on that in the future. Either way, it's very much not my intention to canvass, and if I did so unintentionally, then I do apologize. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I wasn't accusing you of the "bad" form of canvassing. Rather I always state this if the only reason I know about an AFD is via Discord to avoid complaints if a bunch of people who don't normally vote on a topic suddenly show up for unclear reasons - it makes the reason more clear. I suppose we might need a new term for "canvassing" (negative, accusatory) and "canvassing" (neutral, factual report to put off-wiki influence "on the record"), but it's the second meaning.

Anyway, for a topic like "Timeline of Pokemon", I'd say that the answer is yes to all of the above? Sure, include media, video games, business, and culture together here. In fact, it's what gives this timeline more reason to exist separate from things like the List of Pokémon video games article. If I was very hardcore on the topic and trying to make it featured-quality, then I'd start with the very best published sources on it, see if they include tables or timelines, see what they think is relevant to include, and then try to tie them together - e.g. things that appear in multiple sources are more likely to be "relevant" enough to include. It can be tough, but it's no different than the discretion editors exercise in every other article. Even many lists have to struggle with the same issue - take a games list, what about an obscure flip phone mobile game? A now-unplayable web Flash game? Cameos? Fan-games but big and popular ones? The answer is, as usual, to reflect the sources. This article definitely needs work to draw from "Pokemon histories" rather than individual links, but it could exist, which is why at worst it should be redirected & merged while waiting on such published, strong sources to clarify the inclusion criteria. SnowFire (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is the fact there aren't many sources showing a whole chronological timeline like this to verify this information. I found plenty of in-depth sources, but those only covered the early days of the franchise's history. Beyond that, there aren't many overarching sources to look for to characterize what should or should not be included, and many lists and sources I could find that were chronological either lacked dates, were only covering a small sample pool (Such as the main series games exclusively) or both. I'm afraid this approach just doesn't really work here. Without sources to verify it, it's entirely up to editors to decide what is "relevant," which is something that can't really be decided effectively per my above rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's purpose and criteria is very questionable, not to mention redundant. While I recognize SnowFire's argument above I think it's an overly generous view of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a chaotic mish-mash news ticker. Pokémon (video game series) presents the info much better. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Games

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP, only local coverage or related to Rockstar. Maybe redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games? IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Florida. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of repackaged press releases and passing mentions, but I don't see any significant coverage. Donald Albury 17:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition § Development~~ The issues with the remasters when it released in November 2021 made them known as people wanted to know who was in charge of the kerfuffle. [4] Their name change in 2020 had to be in anticipation of the remasters because Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas. – The Grid (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:XY, this is not a good redirect target as the company is known for several games, including multiple Ark: Survival Evolved games. Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas is false; the name is explained in the article. IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I thought for sure it was because of GTA but surprised it's a Gainesville (and most likely University of Florida) moniker. I rescind my vote. – The Grid (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is definitely notable even it does lean on the Mansion series. But overall, it is definitely helpful to readers including myself. Sackkid (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE,WP:ITSHELPFUL, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do think this passes WP:NLIST and is broadly talked about as a grouping in enough sources to let it be a standalone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The article has none discussing them as a group and none have been shown in this AfD nor found in any BEFOREs that would verify notability as a group. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgames

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

Fails WP:N. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company is probably not notable, but e.g. Crisis in the Kremlin was reviewed by igromania.ru. IgelRM (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ameen's argument has a substance. We do have separate articles to avoid the article getting too long. If we delete this article, all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Various entries in the article have their own article as well making the content encyclopedic. Muneebll (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muneebll, ...all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Not really. Various entries in the article have their own article... I don't see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for documentaries, most does. Documentaries also have sources given. In filmography sections, not every entry has article but we still mention them because the main subject is notable. Regardless of your ~~superficial~~ personal view, content of this article being encyclopedic has to be on Wikipedia, either in this article or main article. Muneebll (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Muneebll, Regardless of your superficial view WP:ADHOM. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, I don't see that...isn't a proper response either. WP:PPOV Muneebll (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Saqib: are you suggesting that the content in this page be merged selectively into the main one? That seems to be the most logical outcome. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      CherryPie94, Sure, why not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jon Radoff

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, still fails the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ComputerHope database entry. This appears to be a follow up from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beamable, note that gamerDNA, founded by Radoff, also has an article.. IgelRM (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there an ATD being suggested somewhere here in this discussion? Please identify a suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think keep the article if we use the sources from GamerDNA and Disruptor Beam and maybe merge GamerDNA here. Sources for Disruptor: gamesindustry.biz, gamedaily.biz, pocketgamer.biz IgelRM (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15#Nuzlocke