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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions[edit]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)[edit]

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Dead or Alive series. The article is a huge mess and needs a full rewrite even if she was notable. Should be merged for now per TNT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I'm admittedly not seeing much in the way of significant coverage here. Ping me if additional sources are found, but for now I don't believe this is meeting notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd trust that KFM did an extensive WP:BEFORE check. Maybe someone can find notable commentary someday and split it out again, but today is not that day. I also want to add to anyone unfamiliar with the situation, this article was written by a banned editor who had a lot of bad habits with sources they used and content they wrote about. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence that this character is notable. The reception is mostly just a listicles on how sexy she is, garbage. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Knight Windom XP[edit]

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

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Vault Studios[edit]

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

Fails notability IgelRM (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Sweden. IgelRM (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP does not appear to be met. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Superstars[edit]

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

I could not find any coverage in reliable sources, hence fails both WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It got coverage in Hardcore Gaming 101 and Official Sega Saturn Magazine, so it doesn't need much to push it over the notability threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles covering this game are aplenty: https://segaretro.org/Astra_Superstars/Magazine_articles Cortador (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by Cortador plus my own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late response, been busy. i believe that Griffin's article does fall under notability due to him being cast in multiple significant roles in noteworthy projects (tartaglia in genshin, nate adams from yokai watch, Mule from berserk). Minmarion (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for an actor is not "has been in stuff"; having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, meaning that by definition every actor who exists at all has had acting roles and wouldn't be an actor at all if they hadn't, so quite literally every actor who exists at all would be "inherently" notable if simply listing acting roles were all it took.
The notability test for an actor requires reliable source coverage about him and his performances in real media, demonstrating that his performances have been independently verified as significant ones by somebody other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article must pass either the general notability guidelines, or a subject specific guideline. WP:ENTERTAINER states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Voice actors, and others on the list there as entertainers, are notable for their work, not what others say about it. You can see how many episodes the characters he voices are in for each series listed, so these are significant roles, not a one time minor character. Dream Focus 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KreekCraft[edit]

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

This streamer is not notable and this article has major BLP issues. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are mostly his own videos, as well as sites like this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with over 9 million subscribers I thought this would be a slam dunk, but sure enough the only coverage is low quality churnalism/AI video summaries. BrigadierG (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too thought there would a lot about KreekCraft on the internet seeing the fact that he is nearing 10 million subscribers, but all I found were these [1][2]. The article also only uses primary sources and self published sources, and the Esports articles seem very unreliable. Still can't believe no good sources on KreekCraft. I would've said draftify but theres nothing else to put in this article. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I could only find three/four reliable sources that would possibly count towards notability. The following are all reliable per WP:VGRS: Esports Insider, Venture Beat, and PCGamesN. Also, Esports Advocate is probably reliable, but Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs per WP:DEXERTO. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esports Insider and Venture Beat are run-of-the-mill announcements based on the same press release which don't provide any significant coverage of KreekCraft other than to mention that he's part of the thing being announced. PCGamesN just describes what he found in one of his videos, which isn't really significant coverage in my view. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company)[edit]

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

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic has been deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games. Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mundfish[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Cited coverage in secondary sources is limited to coverage of the subject's sole published game, Atomic Heart, and the page should thus redirect to there. Other coverage falls short of WP:ORGCRITE specifications: unbylined pieces in news aggregators (themselves citing a non-independent interview [3]), interviews ([4], [5], [6]), an unbylined press release in Armenian cited as if it were multiple sources ([7], [8]), and business churnalism [9]. None of the above even begin to make a case for NCORP, and searching for additional coverage online just turned up results about Atomic Heart again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Cyprus. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE. My view is that any coverage is so closely linked to their game that it is better to have it all on one page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big the Cat[edit]

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

Notability. I redirected this article on (to quote article) a minor character in Sonic to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters; edit was reverted. Seeking a broader consensus. I note from the edit histort that there has already been some discussion of the topic, concluding that a redirect is appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AfD does not have a policy-based reason for merging; being a minor character in Sonic is not relevant to whether he is notable. It also misquotes the article; it does not say that this is a minor character, it says that Big plays a minor role in a single Sonic anime series. In his debut role, he's one of six main characters of the game, and he later appears as one of the four trios of characters in Sonic Heroes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the consensus in this past discussion. And a second time here. I asked the article creator what's changed, and it's been days and they haven't responded. It's unclear to me what sources represent significant coverage of the character itself. Even if notability is met, it should be sent back to the draft and copy edited. These prose is extremely rough. No idea why a draft like this was rushed out. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is a bit of significant coverage from Escapist, but overall there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone page on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again. Target should be List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat. The character is too minor for a full article even given that he has some fans. There are a lot of references but all they do is verify that this is a minor character that some people like. This article is also poorly written. I see some people trying to fix that but I think that the notability problem would doom it even if they fixed everything that is fixable and so I recommend that they don't waste too much time on it. Instead, if there is anything worth saving, maybe merge a few sentences (not more) into the redirect target. Also, Froggy (Sonic the Hedgehog character) should be redirected to the same target to avoid a double redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is quite unfortunate that I thought the 2 Eurogamer sources would help, but it really doesn't; just like the Kotaku source. The Escapist alone wouldn't help, but the worst part is this [10]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update to that last bit of your comment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was the one that challenged this being redirected boldly since I had a feeling this character could be notable and I felt as if this users past creations constantly being redirected for not being notable was a little harsh. But now that I see the comment that was linked above, and looking at the article for myself, not only is it not notable, but the writing is horrendous. Not to come off as harsh, but comment above and the user rushing the draft instead of waiting for feedback despite their past failures strikes me as the editor not being competent. λ NegativeMP1 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Cukie Gherkin: or merge with List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)[edit]

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

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been WP:BLAR'd multiple times despite clear opposition to it, which its detractors claim is pointless bureaucracy. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept or redirected yet, but I should note that this spin-off series has several mentions in reliable sources, which makes me think it should be put up to a real AfD discussion rather than hidden on a talk page. Despite technically being part of the Donkey Kong series, the "Vs. Mario" sub-series is long-running and its games have gotten large amounts of coverage, making it possibly undue to simply be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubal: The reason we're here is because this is a procedural AfD on behalf of editors who simply wished to soft delete the article without prior discussion, despite WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) over the current redirect, 2) then redirect it to Donkey Kong#Mario vs. Donkey Kong (to preserve history), 3) move Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The original BLAR was an entirely valid move, and the sources cited by the nominator only help support that the sub-subject is perfectly valid to discuss within the context of the main Donkey Kong series article. Additionally I feel this AfD disrupts an ongoing move discussion at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Speaking as the one who originally redirected the article, I've been rewriting Donkey Kong for the past several months and there simply isn't really much to say about Mario vs. Donkey Kong that can't be said at Donkey Kong. What you'd have is little more than a list of entries, a purpose already served by List of Donkey Kong video games, and it's worth noting that there already exists consensus that Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (demoparty)[edit]

(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 Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Events, and Computing. toweli (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties, as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [11] is the only sigcov here. [12] Passing mention. [13] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [14] trivia coverage. [15] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [16] passing mention [17] listicle [18] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 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!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character's apparent status as the first LGBT SW character is certainly notable, and sources used in the article like The Advocate [19], Out.com [20], TheWrap [21] and Polygon [22] are reliable.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to the character list. While I do understand there's *reaction* to her status as a LGBT character, that alone doesn't particularly feel as notable when there's not a lot of discussion about it to warrant observing her as a character. I feel that's a significant factor her we need to consider.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox[edit]

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

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [23], [24]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
- I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [25] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
- And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Redirects[edit]

CS2 → Carbon disulfide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think CS2 should point to either Counter-Strike 2 or CS2 (disambiguation), rather than Carbon disulfide (CS₂)

Googling "CS2" overwhelmingly shows Counter-Strike 2, and the names have been used interchangeably by most who are familiar with the game, including the developers.[26]

Out of the articles shown on CS2 (disambiguation) that could arguably go by the name "CS2", carbon disulfide is the lowest-trafficked, and Counter-Strike 2 the highest [27]. BugGhost 🪲👻 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the redirect to disambiguation as proposed. The are oh so many things spelled similarly. --Викидим (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Counter-Strike 2 but add a hatnote to the disambig page --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and hatnote to Counter-Strike 2 per nom. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and hatnote to Counter-Strike 2. I highly doubt most people looking for information on carbon disulfide don't also know its full name.

Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move disambiguation page to the base title. I don't see a clear primary topic and redirecting this to the disambiguation page would result is a WP:MALPLACED page. In addition, the abbreviation has been used for a long time, and redirecting it to Counter-Strike 2 would create WP:RECENTISM problems. - Eureka Lott 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move disambiguation page per EurekaLott. I don't feel that elevating the game to the status of primary topic is justified. Nickps (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Video games. Nickps (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move disambiguation page to base title. I am not convinced that search hits relying on the internet-based nature of the gaming community are adequate justification for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, any more than the fact that Google Scholar hits overwhelmingly refer to the chemical would be adequate justification for choosing the other topic as primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per "Counter-Strike 2 is more likely to be searched, but not fully the primary topic either per WP:RECENTISM" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate No obvious primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per the above, this game is too new to guarantee that it will be the primary topic forever. Toadspike [Talk] 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]