Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
  Talk page archive talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges

The Deletion page contains video game articles and related miscellany currently listed for deletion. Articles for deletion can be found at Today's Deletion Log. This page only transcludes discussions; to nominate a new article for deletion please see the articles for deletion page.

To list deletion debates on this page, transclude the discussion here by inserting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME}} under the appropriate day. Add {{subst:VG deletion}} to the debate when listing it here. New entries should be placed at the top of the list, and are sorted by day.

For closed debates, please use {{afdl|article||open date YYYY-MM-DD|close date YYYY-MM-DD|result}} to list debates on this page. If the article has been nominated for deletion before, please use {{afdl|article|article's AfD page|open date (YYYY-MM-DD)|close date (YYYY-MM-DD)|result}} instead. Miscellany nominated for deletion follow the same pattern, but with mfdl instead of afdl.

Contents

November 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Vidya Gaem Awards[edit]

Vidya Gaem Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vidya Gaem Awards" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This does not meet the notability requirements. Most of the article relies on self-referential or self-published content. I'm not even sure that the two independent sources support notability either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: These appear to be the only three reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable "awards" given out by messageboard users. Coverage is very minimal and says little other than "it exists". Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

November 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Battalen[edit]

Battalen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Battalen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Flash game with no indication of notability. Prod removed with no reason given. Kolbasz (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete fails GNG and references are all to WP itself! DocumentError (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Collins (MTA Character)[edit]

Michael Collins (MTA Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Michael Collins (MTA Character)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unsourced article about fictional character no indication of WP:Notability Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - as far as I can tell, seems to be in WP:MADEUP territory. ansh666 01:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Your made-up GTA Online character will never earn any notability unless they become sentient and come out of the monitor to be a real person; typical archetype of typical character used by who knows how many in that game. Nate (chatter) 03:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11; obviously invented by the article's creator. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks straightforward. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

SCII Arcade: Project Haven[edit]

SCII Arcade: Project Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SCII Arcade: Project Haven" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Hot Coffee or DotA aside, since when have mods been notable, let alone one made with a mod editor? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. A: When they're covered by abundant, secondary, reliable sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Would entertain a redirect to a StarCraft-related article if there is a single secondary source that would host such a connection. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  07:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels[edit]

GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Alleged to be A7 and G11 csd eligible, however the game itself and the material are in decent enough shape that this could be considered a good stub. I checked for a copyvio, and found the material copy/pasted from a wikia site that claims material published is copyleft, in the absence of any other compelling reason to speedy delete I think it better for the article to be afd'd for community input on the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - I nominated this page for CSD G11 and A7 since I felt it both relied on promotional content and does not have a claim of significance. All the article states is that it was a scroll shooter made in 2004, how the game is played, and an external link to a gaming website. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Aerospeed, to prevent the deletion of the page GA Angel Soldier A - Dual Angels, I need anyone who can fix it, making it meet the general notability guidelines. It's not a promotion, swear. I have never experienced contributing Wikipedia since I experienced contributing Wikia. Can you help me fix it? Muhammadrizkya (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Muhammadrizkya: Unfortunately, we have different guidelines here on Wikipedia about what kinds of topics should be included than on a Wikia wiki. Generally, the notability of a topic is established by the availability of sources which give an in-depth discussion of that topic. If you can demonstrate that this video game has received significant coverage from third-party reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, critical reviews, etc., then you can establish the subject's notability. Unfortunately, if you are unable to find such sources discussing a topic, no amount of editing can overcome a notability issue. Advice I often give is the amnesia test:
  1. Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
  2. Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources (Wikia wikis and personal WordPress blogs are not considered reliable enough for Wikipedia)
  3. From your research, and your research only, write an article
  4. If you find that there are few or no reliable sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Regards, Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: The content of the article appears to have been taken directly from this Wikia article. Accordingly, I have attributed the content to Wikia, since it is available under CC-BY-SA. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. If I could find any decent source about the game, I'd consider redirecting it to Galaxy Angel, but it's not mentioned there and the game appears obscure, so delete for now. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  07:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I was also unable to find coverage from reliable third-party sources required for notability. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A11, "Made up by article creator or an associate, and no indication of importance/significance" NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Denix[edit]

Denix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Denix" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Poorly referenced article; possibly a neologism. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as A11; only source is one comment in a forum inviting people to make up names. Sam Walton (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (A11). Invented word from a small community, no citations, no claim of significance. czar  20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AIRLINE Simulation[edit]

AIRLINE Simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "AIRLINE Simulation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable software game (proposed deletion removed by originator) MilborneOne (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. No worthwhile redirect targets. The full name is still unclear to me, which doesn't help, but by any stretch, I'm not finding any secondary sourcing on this with or without the "zimmerman" or "commodore" attributes to help. Of the sources in the article, one is a PowerPoint apparently given by the creator (primary source) and the others are inaccessible or just not sources. No hits in a video game reliable sources search. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  15:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is impossible to tell what is valid in the article, and what may be original research. However, I'm not finding any extra sourcing on this whatsoever either, although this is complicated somewhat by the incredibly generic name. Everything in the article does not appear to count towards any notability guideline; one is apparently a primary source, two are not going to count in any way (individual profile pages of University members or just name dropping universities) and the other is impossible to assess for its reliability. No valid redirect target, so this has to go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Last of us (film)[edit]

The Last of us (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Last of us (film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't exactly meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but the article has no sources, is most likely non-notable, and is possibly a hoax (namely because of that "made by naughty dog" part). Biblioworm 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete It does have an entry on IMDB, but this fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Last of Us, where the in-development film is already discussed. As Google and GNews searches will bear out, the project is receiving coverage, such as [4][5][6], but I don't see that anything has happened yet that makes a separate article appropriate per WP:NFF. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please note that The Last of Us (film) (correctly capitalized) has existed as a redirect to The Last of Us#Film adaptation since 7 March 2014.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this three-sentence, unsourced stub as waaaay TOO soon. WHEN the film meets WP:NF, we will be rebuilding a properly sourced article under the proper spelling. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Redirect to Taiko no Tatsujin. Any content worth merging is available in the history. Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiko no Tatsujin (video game)[edit]

Taiko no Tatsujin (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Taiko no Tatsujin 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin (2011 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Waku Waku Anime Matsuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Atsumare! Matsuri da!! Yondaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin Wii: Do Don to Nidaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin Wii: Minna de Party Sandaime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin Wii: Kettei-Ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Wii U Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Portable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Portable 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Portable DX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metcha! Taiko no Tatsujin DS: Nanatsu no Shima no Daibouken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin DS: Dororon! Yokai Daikessen!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin: Don to Katsu no Jikū Daibōken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin (iOS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiko no Tatsujin Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: "Taiko no Tatsujin (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As a fan and creator of articles of some of the more recent releases, I am nominating all articles of individual Taiko no Tatsujin releases for deletion because there is just not enough notability individually. Most console releases receive a Famitsu score and that's it, and arcade releases receive even less RS attention. Most times I write on any of these it easily spirals into only large chunks of unsourced prose and/or just the playable song list. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Bundle added. Taiko: Drum Master was kinda OK IMO because as the only English release more RS actually cared. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 10:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Hisashiyarouin, why are these being nominated for deletion? Wouldn't it make more sense to just redirect them to the series page (Taiko no Tatsujin)? They're all valid search terms. Did anyone contest you redirecting the ones without sources? czar  14:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Mostly on the safe side, considering there is so many of them and there are considerable work from other people. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Redirect. A WP:VG/RS search shows enough coverage for the series in aggregate, but not individually (eh, could probably make a case for the original DS release with its review from NWR, sales article in Kotaku, Wired mention, but it really would fit better in the parent article). If reliable non-English and offline sources can be found for an individual title, have at it. Nothing to merge, the articles and track listings are unsourced. czar  14:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge - Deletion is certainly not appropriate. Merge and redirect as appropriate with the series page. JTdale Talk 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge - Per Czar and JTdale. Especially if Famitsu has given them scores I see no reason to delete this RS info. Also is Famitsu really the only magazine covering Japanese games these days? I only know anything about Japan's 1990s-era coverage, but they used to have several magazines back then. Whatever happened to Famimaga? Gamest? Beep? Have they all gone defunct? Is there nothing that has replaced them? -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 20:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Car Driver[edit]

Car Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Car Driver" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I might be missing something, because this game old and doesn't really have a search-friendly name, but despite what I reckon was a pretty thorough search, I can't come up with anything to suggest this game meets the notability requirements set out at WP:GNG or WP:NVG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Can't verify it even exists. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  15:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. No indication here of notability and I didn't find any coverage. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Legendary Tales: The Prophecy of the Demon Emperor (video game)[edit]

Legendary Tales: The Prophecy of the Demon Emperor (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Legendary Tales: The Prophecy of the Demon Emperor (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Prod removed by IP. Hasn't been released yet - only due for release in 2016. It may not even be released. Can't tell if it meets GNG et al until then, all we have now is hype and advertising Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON, as the game has not released and from what I can see via the developer's facebook page, this is a brand new announced project that is currently seeking funding on IndieGoGo. I honestly can't see where any true production has begun on the game other than some marketing material. What kind of makes this entire thing slightly dodgy is that so far there has been zero coverage of this and all we have to show that there is any plans for the game is a photoshopped SNES cartridge, a mockup of the game box, and some artwork on Facebook. I can't even find anything that talks about the developer Midnight Riders NSK other than their fb and Twitter accounts. Their IndieGoGo campaign doesn't even seem to exist, from what I can see. This may be a case of an indie developer that doesn't really have any true experience with marketing their prospective games but I've seen people come on to Wikipedia to promote games that were either outright hoaxes or so unlikely to get made that they may as well be hoaxes. If it's the case where this is a very inexperienced crew of people, then Wikipedia is the last place in the world you need to be. The best place to seek promotion would be to contact the gaming websites that are likely to promote independent games. I'll warn you though, you will need to have more than a mockup of the game's promotional artwork. An actual concept screenshot would be what you need to show them and you will need a website that is actually functional. Even so, this is just too soon for an entry. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith here, but I can't help but feel that I've seen this artwork somewhere else- this just seems a little fishy that there's all this artwork but no actual coverage of the game and no IndieGoGo campaign. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 04:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and none likely to be found until at least when the game is released, if ever. For me, it lies somewhere between WP:TOOSOON and WP:HOAX; either way it's delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above and failing WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Ifnord (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did finally find an IndieGoGo page, only for it to show up as a cancelled campaign. Apparently they started the campaign up two days after the AfD was posted, but the whole thing was cancelled. This comes across as extremely fishy to me, so this kind of further fuels my suspicion that this is pretty much all a somewhat elaborate hoax, especially since the article claims a different campaign date and a different amount of money. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically I'm getting the impression that this is one of two scenarios: someone who decided to make up a hoax game for whatever reason (money, lulz, etc) and realized how easy it'd be to get caught (and the repercussions for this) or someone who put together a game premise without fully cementing everything and things fell through very, very quickly. Either way, it doesn't look likely that this game will get made anytime soon or at all. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like a hoax or joke to me, with elements that seem to parody both ultra-generic JRPGs (the art & story) as well as over-promising crowdsource projects (promise to release it on every imaginable platform including SNES cartridge!). This would all be worth an ironic laugh or two if it weren't for the apparent attempt to raise real money for it. Score one for humanity that nobody was dumb enough to donate real money to a project with the Team listed as "John Doe" (no, really). Even giving it the maximum imaginable benefit of the doubt and assuming that someone, somwhere is serious about this game (maybe John Doe?), it's neither notable or verifiable enough for Wikipedia and is unlikely to become so unless actually released. I'll keep the SNES handy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. The arguments are a bit thin; however, I note there is no real argument made to prove the positive. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hana Hayes[edit]

Hana Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hana Hayes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG. Also do not believe the subject's career achievements meet the criteria of NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet NACTOR. Also a case of WP:TOOSOON for this young actress, maybe notable in future but not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as passes GNG as well as NACTOR. –Davey2010(talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Ambisonic Productions[edit]

List of Ambisonic Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Ambisonic Productions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG. Also comes off as being trivial to me. GamerPro64 23:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No objections. My reason to create this page was that I found it to be cluttering the main article, yet didn't want to just discard the potentially valuable work of previous editors. I'm not happy with moving such a scratchpad page to my User space (particularly since I don't see myself working on it any time soon), so if it can't stay here, it will have to go, unless somebody else steps up to adopt it. --Nettings (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other articles you made in the same vein? GamerPro64 13:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates/splits from Ambisonics#Use_in_gaming, which covers it better. Would be easier if the creator just nominated it for speedy deletion without going through the AfD process. Not a particularly useful search phrase, so deletion preferred over redirection. czar  15:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You mean the creator as in the one who made the AfD or the one who made the article? GamerPro64 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Page creator is @Nettings, and you're the nom. The page creator could G7 the page as the page's sole author. czar  17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, Czar's observation appears accurate. I don't strongly oppose a redirect if someone felt it necessary, but stats.grok.se doesn't leave me with a sense that there's a non-trivial link from outside of WP pointing here, and various search engines will do a fine enough job at finding our coverage without the redirect. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Joseph Garrett. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Stampy's Lovely World[edit]

Stampy's Lovely World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stampy's Lovely World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article does not indicate any notability and is almost blank, with the exception of a rather uninformative infobox on the side. Biblioworm 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Borderline speedy delete category but doesn't quite fit the no context or no content criteria for that deletion method. No evidence of sufficient notability outside of World of Warcraft found in my searches. There's an article on Wikia about it, which is enough for something of this level of notablility. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I can live with a redirect to Joseph Garrett, hadn't done that part of my homework correctly so didn't realise he had an article. Good catch NinjaRobotPirate. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. It would be a fine redirect to an article on "Stampy" if one were to exist. (Which it shouldn't, at least not for now, since the only dedicated article on the YouTuber is this and the rest are passing mentions.) I think this nominatino could have waited more than three hours to see where the article might have been going. If nothing happens in a day or two, it should fit A7 as web content with no indication of importance. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  02:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Joseph Garrett per above ("It would be a fine redirect to an article on "Stampy" if one were to exist.") Even after searching WP for Stampy, didn't know he had a page. Redirects are cheap. czar  06:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Joseph Garrett, Stampy's creator. Probably too soon for an article as of yet. Can be recreated once there is significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Sonic Boom (TV series)#Video games. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Boom (2014 video games)[edit]

Sonic Boom (2014 video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sonic Boom (2014 video games)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This is an unnecessary page, as the full disambiguation is available at Sonic boom (disambiguation). -- Pingumeister(talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: If this page were deleted, what would be done with the material pertaining to its history, e.g. talk page discussions and the template about its appearance at DYK? Tezero (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apart from lock requests, the only discussion on the talk page is about splitting the old incarnation of this article into the two articles we see now. That discussion is completed, as is the split. As for the DYK information, the record is available here. -- Pingumeister(talk) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(series)#Sonic_Boom. The page's content was merged into other articles, thus the page must not be deleted so as to preserve its attribution history. (I recommend withdrawing the AfD for this reason alone.) The best course of action would actually be histmerging this page with Rise of Lyric (splitting to one article as opposed to two). I imagine there will be a page on this franchise in toto eventually, but until then, redirect to the entry within the main series article. This has more utility than redirecting an unlikely disambiguator to a disambiguation page. czar  04:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
TV series article is fine, though there will be a more definitive "franchise" section or article somewhere eventually, which will make the best target. As for privileging one of the two games over the other, the idea is preserving the edit history, which mostly pertains to the non-handheld version. That can be resolved post-AfD, though czar  15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sonic Boom (TV series)#Video games as per above. Closing this early might also be a good idea as I don't believe this could be a contentious issue. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. This is an WP:INCOMPDAB. Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect - its a plausible search term, but yes, its redundant to the overall Sonic Boom DAB page. Would probably be better as a section there. Deletion isn't the correct path though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Amak-3d[edit]

Amak-3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amak-3d" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Seems like a non-notable website. I almost nominated this for WP:A7 but there is a claim that it is "the largest privately owned gaming website" which is a dubious but not blatantly false claim of significance. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - The website appears to have been ignored entirely by independent third-party sources required for notability. Fails WP:WEBCRIT on all counts. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new website, sourced only to its Alexa rating (beyond 12 millionth). No evidence found of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per AllyD and Northamerica George.Edward.CTalkContributions 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the website does not meet WP:NWEB as stated above, the page is not popular or is covered by reliable news websites. ///EuroCarGT 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to the above, the topic has no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  15:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources are not provided to establish notability and they seem to not exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to Five Nights at Freddy's. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's Character's[edit]

Five Nights at Freddy's Character's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Five Nights at Freddy's Character's" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Redundant to Five Nights at Freddy's, the few extra details aren't encyclopedic, and not a plausible redirect due to the title saying "Character's" instead of "characters" Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's, perhaps in a new section (Plot > Characters). Article title error seems to be just a mishanded typo and editor has expressed need of help in moving (in the article text). Can we move an article while under AfD BTW? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it makes a little mess czar  15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge into Five Nights at Freddy's. Character information is fine unsourced, if I recall correctly, as long as it's kept to a minimum, but there's still some gamecruft that should be taken out. And no, moving articles that are AfD nominated isn't a good thing, probably because of the redirect confusion it'd cause. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete / Merge as non-notable, along with the fact that there isn't much to the game that would ever warrant a separate article for character coverage. A merge could be done, but I'm not sure if anything is worth keeping; Five Nights at Freddy's already has a (comparatively) complete gameplay description, while the article in question is unsourced and provides details that I think are too excessive for an encyclopedia (gamecruft, as Supernerd mentioned). A quick listing of the characters and their appearances wouldn't be bad, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. These characters do not have enough significant coverage individually or together to warrant their own article, and I think even their own section. All of the content on the page or available in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search is video game trivia and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I don't think this is a worthwhile redirect, but in the off-chance that there is a strong case made for merge, the article should be retitled List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters, though I do think the article should be deleted in lieu of all that. czar  15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge. There is definite merit in including some of the information in the overall page for the game (although leave out the creepiness rating), but there's not really a need for a separate article at this point in time since there aren't many characters in the game at this point in time. If there are a substantial amount of new characters in the other games in the series (there will be at least one sequel, apparently), then we can always create a list page. However I do have to say that the former article title (Five Nights at Freddy's Character's) doesn't fit any of the naming conventions and is grammatically incorrect, so it'd have to be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. No point in having a separate one, though the information on the nominated article would be good for the main Freddy's page.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Important and relevant info for the game, but not enough to merit a separate article. Lump it all back into the game article. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This will need to be pretty constantly watched wherever it goes, as this seems prone to people adding fan speculation and rumors, and the like. Plus they've been keen on adding gender to the mascots, which is somewhat silly since they're animatronics and until it is revealed that the characters are the ghosts or something of various people, they cannot have gender. It'll need constant maintenance to make sure that it's not turned into a fan wikia or rumor mill. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Play![edit]

Play! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Play!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable piece of software, as far as I can tell. Finding sources for this is made difficult by its name, which neither Google nor DuckDuckGo will handle properly, but even websites listing PS2 emulators don't list this one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and remove from Template:Sony emulators. Mostly first party sources, no established notability. As you said, finding sources would be near-impossible due to the name. George.Edward.CTalkContributions 12:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - software (emulator) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar  03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Game Show[edit]

The Game Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Game Show" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article tagged with issue for over 5 years. No third-party sources to show notability, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article survived a PROD in 2009 based on the claim that the topic was covered by RSes like G4TV. The ref that was added (and still exists in the article) does indeed cover the topic so it's not accurate to say that no third party sources exist. Finding good sourcing is a bit of a challenge since the name is so generic. There may not be much so I decline to !vote "keep" at present. -Thibbs (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I did not identify it as truly independant as it looks like G4 & The Game Show people come from the same set of companies Revision3#History, so are current or previous colleagues. This is also explains why there's so many guests from G4TV in its episodes.--Otterathome (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yetisports[edit]

Yetisports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yetisports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to have any reliable sources to back up its notability. As well as parts of the article fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. GamerPro64 03:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rename to Yetisports (series) and clean up (AKA properly source) - I see over 100k hits when I run a search through the WP:VG Custom RS Search. Of course the results cover not just the first game, but all of the different versions and sequels (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., etc.). Coverage is widespread internationally too, with Polish, German, Russian, and Japanese RSes reporting (PL, DE, RU, JP) among others. So the series seems to be pretty well covered which indicates some that there's something notable here. I can't say I find a huge amount on just the first member in the series (i.e. the ostensible topic of our Wikipedia article), but merging what we have into "Yetisports (series)" and properly sourcing it might allow us to salvage some of the work that has gone into what we have so far. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If we can get that to happen, I'm all for the proposal. GamerPro64 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

October 31 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists[edit]

The Fine Young Capitalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Fine Young Capitalists" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A few users on the article's talk page have noted that this organization is not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy, and I agree. There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. Since the organization is already described in the existing GamerGate article, I think this article should be deleted. Hustlecat (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation has any significant notability independent of the GamerGate controversy, and is essentially a coatrack regurgitating material better covered elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Article absolutely meets the general notability guideline, with 14 reliable sources. Similarly, OP making the argument that is essentially WP:BLP1E without the BLP bit does not affect policy. There is adequate sourcing for the article, and just because they've been embroidered in a controversy doesn't mean that they lose any of that notability. OP even admits this. 'Not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy'. They are notable, have met the GNG, and as such, meet the notability guideline. Full stop. There's no policy based deletion argument here. OP also makes an erroneous argument saying There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. They've met their due coverage verbosely in reliable sources in due quantity, and COATRACK is an essay which refers to tangentially related to content added to the pages. It has no due weight in a deletion debate. Due to them overtly meeting the GNG, the page should be kept full heartedly. I also don't see much rush to delete Zoe Quinn, who is presumably in the same category guideline wise as TFYC. In spite of BLP1E applying surely to their article as well, and appropriately; it is a biography. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. The Zoe Quinn article is in a different category as the majority of RS's state she is central to the conflict. That is not the case for the article in question, which per the RS's is tangential to the conflict. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a policy based reason to delete other than the essay WP:COATRACK? As mentioned, it already easily meets the general notability guideline. With 14 reliable sources, it's kind of a mystery to me on why you think it isn't notable. Not exactly a mystery, just a bit confusing with no policy/guideline to backup the deletion request. Tutelary (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If there is information in the RS's that show the subject is notable separately from GamerGate, the article should be updated to reflect that. As it currently stands, it is not independently notable - per WP:INHERITORG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:AUD. I am suggesting deletion because this article's content overlaps heavily with the existing GamerGate one. Hustlecat (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be. There is no equivalent rule for BLP1E except with organizations. WP:ORGDEPTH, the guideline you just linked explicitly disagrees with you. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage has not been 'trivial' and has been independent and substantial. Again, 14 sources demonstrate notability for the topic and easily meets the guideline. WP:INHERITORG doesn't particularly apply because there wasn't any 'inheriting' going on. If you're trying to imply it's trying to inherit notability from GamerGate, this is untrue because TFYC themselves have been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources, and per the guideline, makes it notable. Trying to say that 'Oh, they're only notable in the context of GamerGate' so they should be deleted isn't a valid reason to dismiss the 14 reliable sources already here. Finally, WP:AUD does not apply because it's received a good amount of coverage not from just local sources, but diverse sources so it does not apply. Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Just dug into the current references list a little more. In the case that the article is merged or remains up, they should be more closely scrutinized. A couple quick examples: the subject's own site is not an RS for their own notability. A couple of the gaming blogs listed should also be confirmed as RS's before their information is used as fact or proof of notability. I'm also not sure if CinemaBlend or The Mary Sue can be counted as RS's as I've seen discussion to the contrary here in the past. Either way there are definitely fewer than 14 RS's on this. Hustlecat (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak delete It's liable to be limited to a COATRACKing of the gamergate controversy article, but there are sources out there. I suspect that the majority of them are linked wholly or largely to GG and not really about TFYC by themselves. For evidence on what a cluster flock this can turn into if we're not willing to delete coatracked articles look at the federalist. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The group has absolutely no notability outside their involvement in the gamergate fiasco, and precious little even in that context. The article as it stands is a coatrack to polish the movement's image on an article with less scrutiny than Gamergate controversy. It fails WP:WEB's 'no inherited notability' clause, as it owes what notability it has entirely to gamergate, and fails the GNG in that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Very few of the sources in the article are primarily about the subject as opposed to incidentally mentioning it in an article on another subject (i.e. Gamergate) and the few sources that it does have are quite weak in terms of reliability. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    The only reasonably reliable sources are ones that mention the subject only incidentally. Of the 'non-trivial' and 'independent' sources (that is, sources that are primarily about the subject and don't originate from the subject) we have: APGNation, an unreliable source, Gameindustry.biz, GamePolitics.com, and Gameranx.com, all minor gaming sites with questionable reliablility (only the first has even been deemed usable by the Wikiproject for Video Games, their stock in trade) and articles in Cinema Blend (by William Usher, an overt Gamergate supporter) and Vice that are primarily about the subject's relation to gamergate. There's no way this passes WP:WEB or the gng. The Keeps smack of WP:ILIKEIT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep per pre-GamerGate coverage in Gamesindustry.biz and GamePolitics. Additionally the coverage in Forbes, Reason, Cinema Blend several times, The Daily Dot, TechCrunch twice, Vice, The Mary Sue, Pocket Gamer, and The Verge, even if during GamerGate, all strongly point to this group meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mind you people are keeping out more detailed information on TFYC at the GamerGate article because they think the preceding sources are not sufficient to warrant extensive attention given the enormity of sources in the GamerGate article. The sources do more than warrant an independent article and there was no serious push for deletion during the entire time it was up for DYK or after it was on the front page of Wikipedia. The "coatrack" argument has no validity as this focuses as much as possible on only the details concerning TFYC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-sourced, well-referenced article, that is educational and encyclopedic and helps inform our readers and editors, alike. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. COATRACKing calls for trimming extraneous text, not deletion. Cut back on the material on TFYC in the GamerGate articles and keep a rein on the GamerGate information in this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable ("significant" "reliable" "independent" "sources" cover it; no reason is shown to "presume" it is not suitable) as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. While article content could use work to reduce GG related content and increase details of the company itself & its activities; it is not obviously or necessarily a WP:COATRACK, and deletion is NOT CLEANUP. - Ryk72 (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it is notable as an independent "game jam" session from Gamergate, and also succeeds the WP:GNG Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it has that coatrack appearance because the actual organization's management and its activities aren't covered in depth by the refs. This said, it meets the GNG for the sourcing from RS listed above, even if it means an article almost exclusively about Gamergate at this point. If a conversation is warranted on whether the article needs to exist outside its Gamergate article mention (which I take to be the intent of this nom), it should be saved for when we're processing the Gamergate retrospectives. But if it comes to that, it should be a talk page discussion and not an AfD, because we would still be redirecting this title and not killing the topic altogether. czar , DYK reviewer 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • DeleteNot notable, Wikipedia should not be used for fund-raising (crowd-sourcing) or as a credential; entry reads as it is, self promotional . --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is well sourced and referenced article. It seems notable enough to warrant an article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. No established notability outside the Gamergate controversy. As TaraInDC says, the bulk of sources are actually about Gamergate and only mention this subject incidentally. Others are some combination of questionable, non-independent, or self-published. Anything valuable not already covered at Gamergate controversy can be merged there.--Cúchullain t/c 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The term is clearly related to the Gamergate controversy. Most of the delete !votes are explicit about this fact. Last I checked the article isn't defamatory or otherwise problematic. At 450+k GHITS it is abundantly clear that this is an important search term. At the bare minimum we should be looking at a merge or redirect. We're supposed to assist all readers, not selectively confound them. Straight deletion as !voted for by a number of voters above is nonsense. -Thibbs (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: The notability of this subject cannot be extricated from its GamerGate ties. The only reason it received any press was because the group managed to capitalize off of people hating Zoe Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly meets GNG. Whether we need to make the article less about GG is a discussion for another day. KonveyorBelt 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 08:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Coolhouse Productions[edit]

Coolhouse Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Coolhouse Productions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

1 ref and its not about the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Well... it is, sort of. It's about a game that the company created, so that does show some notability for them as they can gain notability via the products that they create and release. However I do want to stress that one source is not enough to show notability, so the one source doesn't really accomplish much. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Could not find sources on Google News except for one article in a foreign language which did not seem likely to amount to much. II | (t - c) 05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence has been provided in the past two weeks showing that this company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence of notability, nor does the solitary ref review of a product by the firm provide that. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 29 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

DynGen Hunter[edit]

DynGen Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "DynGen Hunter" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence that this game is notable. The links provided are to download sites (via iTunes, Google Play, etc.), a link to a gaming website that has zero content, and a forum/profile page on another similar website that does not appear to meet WP:RS. I can find no substantive third-party information about this game. Kinu t/c 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete There is no reliable sources (that I can find) that mention the game. If this is 'notable' surely every game ever made should have a Wikipedia page. Wrightie99 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Can't find any reliable source coverage of this game. Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:GNG - No indication why this is notable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I did a Highbeam search which gave no results. A google search did not find any reliable sources. - Taketa (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing usable in WP:VG/RS Google custom search, and only around 100 Google hits total, none of which seem to be reliable sources. Probably too soon for an article. Can be recreated later when reviews show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable/independent sources, not notable. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star[edit]

Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral/Weak keep - I'm not sure about this one, really. The reason why I say weak keep is that there is a prospect of expanding it, there's a large enough JaWiki article regarding the game. George.Edward.CTalkContributions 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Here's the deal. It has no hits or notability in English-language video game reliable sources, and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. However, the jawp article has four sources from 1996. This said, I can't figure out what they are for the life of me. If they are articles in magazines that someone can get, what do they cover? The jawp has no footnotes so I don't know if it's an ad or a full article or something else. If they're reviews, I could see this sticking around but until then... please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates that this is a valid topic that hinges on the clear distinction between "pornographic" and "sex and nudity". Similarly, "Eroge" is a specific Japanese cultural term and does not apply to the wider genre. The article needs improvement and there are reliable sources available to facilitate that.  Philg88 talk 09:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pornographic video game[edit]

Pornographic video game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pornographic video game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Having stared at this article for some time, and flagged it for reference deficiencies, I cannot see how it can ever be more than a dictionary definition. A pornographic video game is a video game which is pornographic. Surely all it can ever do is to elaborate on the term 'pornography' and stray into repeating text from articles on video games? Certainly at present all we have is a bit of CNN referenced description, a reference to something else entirely, and a list of papers which may or may not be relevant. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed, pretty much a dictionary definition. Furthermore the topic is already covered by the very similar Sex and nudity in video games article referenced on the page itself. Nyctimene (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sex and nudity in video games. I agree the topic's not notable on its own, but I can see that as a search term and this linked article is a good target for a redirect, even if the term isn't fully called out. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Placing the redirect as Masem suggests is not a bad idea. Ivanvector (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eroge or per Masem. While there are non-Japanese examples, the most well-known are. ansh666 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this should stay, but if it does it should not be at this title. ansh666 08:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eroge - "Eroge" is a word of Japanese origin, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the word is specific to games made in Japan. The Eroge article should deal with eroge no matter what country of development. Deletion should not be a consideration; "Pornographic video game" is a valid search term, as are the redirects currently pointing to this title. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was notified of this AfD because I "created" this page by moving it over to sex and nudity in video games. This article is an attempt to force a genre out of similar but unrelated instances, as was the original version. Just as "bus movie" isn't a film genre just because some films take place in buses. This should be redirected back to sex and nudity in video games. Similarly, saying that eroge should deal with American games is like saying that anime should include Caillou. We don't create articles about the world we want, we stick to the world that is. Eroge is eroge. A "valid search term" doesn't make something real or notable. Search terms are great places for redirects, and the "redirects currently pointing to this title" are valid search terms, which all (until recently) pointed to sex and nudity in video games. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not against a merge with eroge for now, but it should be absolutely without prejudice regarding a split in the future. As JohnnyMrNinja points out, eroge is a specialized form of pornographic video game, not a synonym. Anyway deletion which wipes out the history should not be considered here. I have a hard time believing that the genre (other redirected synonyms include adult game and sex game) hasn't generated enough commentary from the RSes to be considered notable. I'm unable to make a deeper examination at the moment, but a very quick search of Google Scholar, Google Books, and WP:VG's custom search engines using several obvious synonyms ("pornographic video game", "pornographic game", "adult video game", "adult game", "erotic video game", etc.) shows a large number of possibly usable RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking into Thibbs' claims above, I find that they are accurate; there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss pornographic/erotic/adult video games as a genre. There also seems to be plenty non-Japanese games in the genre, from a look at Category:Erotic video games. There is plenty of source material that could be used to develop this article, based on a Google Books search. Articles should not be deleted simply because they are poorly written. As such, I am changing my !vote above to Keep. Neelix (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
"Erotic" and "pornographic", though they may evoke the same thing, are not the same thing. I am confused at why the author (User:Carrot Lord, now retired) decided that they are despite saying that they are not! I'd say move this to Adult video game or Erotic video game, which currently redirects here. ansh666 18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to back up the claim that they are not the same thing? What differences do you see between them? Neelix (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going off the dictionary definitions. ansh666 03:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you have access to a dictionary that provides a definition for "erotic video game" and "pornographic video game"? We cannot infer that the difference between the definitions of "erotic" and "pornographic" result in an encyclopedic difference between erotic video games and pornographic video games. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect (revised !vote): reviewing both articles, Eroge is specifically about the Japanese genre, while Sex and nudity in video games is more likely what a user who types "pornographic video games" in the search box is looking for. It seems to me that Sex and nudity is the more appropriate target, but I think consensus is against me. So redirect to Eroge with a hatnote to the sex and nudity article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. While there are obvious issues with the quality of the article, I don't think this can seriously be argued to be a non-notable topic. Here are a few sources that deal specifically with pornographic video games: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Of course I can keep going. Pornographic games are a substantial industry in Japan, and have been the subject of political debate (one consequence of which was the banning of games depicting pedophilia or rape, which are still legal in the US). However, the phenomenon is obviously not limited to Japan, and ought to be discussed in global perspective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In response to editors who suggested redirecting to "Sex and nudity in video games" or something of the like, this is a bit like redirecting "pornographic films" to "sex and nudity in film." There's a clear distinction between media that contains sexual content, and media whose primary purpose is to arouse. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's true for film, where pornographic film is a distinct genre. That seems to be less clear in video games. Ivanvector (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it's very clear. Do a google search for "hentai game." --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Which is eroge. ansh666 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It's very clear from a Google Books search of the other terms, such as "pornographic video games". See also List of erotic video games which, if there is a merger or redirect, would be a more relevant target than the others that have been recommended. Neelix (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: The two main redirect target candidates mentioned above (Eroge and Sex and nudity in video games) contradict each other: the former claims that "eroge" is the generic term for erotic games (and then goes on to pretty much only talk about Japanese games and mention that all eroge have sexually explicit scenes) while the latter claims that the same term applies only to Japanese games - both have the term "pornography" exactly twice, each once about how some people think the games are porn but others disagree. This has led to my, and no doubt others', confusion over whether this or any related page is a fork or duplicate, and of what. Can we clearly define any of these terms, and decide whether any are equivalent: "eroge", "adult video game", "erotic video game", and "pornographic video game"? ansh666 04:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that is simply the result of somebody trying to alter reality through WP editing. Above I made the parallel to anime (Japanese) vs animation (generic), but eroge is a little less clear because there is no analogue in the English-typing world. Eroge is a respectable genre because Japanese culture and Japanese markets allow it to be. Someone probably felt that eroge should include all pornographic games (even though it doesn't) because then we'd have a box we could lump these other games into. Since they don't fit in the eroge box, someone else felt they should create one at the pornographic game, but it's the same story of trying to alter reality through WP editing. And if enough people read it on Wikipedia, it will become true. That's how the world got the concept of video game console "generations". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Above I listed five sources that discuss pornographic games in general, but amazingly, there still seems to be some confusion about whether pornographic games even exist, or exist as a distinct genre. I would advise anyone who has such doubts to look at list of erotic video games, which lists a small selection of what is out there. You'll notice that most of the games are Japanese, but many are Western. Actually there is not only a genre, but multiple distinct subgenres of pornographic games: dating sims, wherein you try to convince characters (usually women) to sleep with you via text dialogues and are rewarded with pornographic images (there are some Western games in this category, such as Singles: Flirt Up Your Life); run-or-rape games, wherein you either rape people or try to escape rapists; a vast multitude of silly flash games like Super Deepthroat where you manually control sex acts (many Western games fall in this category); 3D simulators like those by ThriXXX (again, Western games are more represented here); training games like Slavemaker 3, wherein you train slaves either for sale or to collect a harem; MMO's such as Sociolotron and Adult Virtual World; and in fact other subgenres as well, with no limit of opportunities to not have sex with real people in person. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's see:
  • Source #1 is about a serious game, not for entertainment or erotic purposes.
  • Source #2 talks specifically about Rapelay, and calls it eroge.
  • Source #3 does not group these games in a genre besides the rating (AO, adult-only) or eroge.
  • Source #4 is inaccessible online even with my uni credentials, so maybe? Can't judge this one, the "abstract" tells us absolutely nothing.
  • Source #5 is a study about domestic violence and sexual assault in video games.
  • None of the "sources" in your comment immediately above are remotely reliable.
  • So, yes, it is right that there is confusion. And, even if you clearly established that "pornographic video game" exists as a genre, there would still be confusion as to where the other terms fit in with this. ansh666 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The examples in the comment immediately above were obviously not intended as sources. They are intended to inform those who are unaware of the thousands of pornographic games that exist. As for your criticism of the five actual sources, I think almost everything you said is wrong, but rather than dispute it point by point, here are five more sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again? Ok.
  1. "...Japanese Youth Culture". About eroge.
  2. "...serious games". Also about eroge, as well as about using them as serious games as opposed to entertainment.
  3. "Animalization of Otaku culture". Guess what Otaku is? Japanese.
  4. Now we're getting somewhere, but labels them as "adult/erotic games" - meaning a name change is probably preferred.
  5. "...in Japan". Are you even reading these?
I'd seriously like to think why you think these sources are relevant. ansh666 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The title of the article is not "non-serious pornographic video games of other than Japanese origin." --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, point one. The definition given by Wikipedia for pornography is "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal". The definition of serious game is "a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment". Are these two not at odds with each other?
Point two: I'm not saying that sources about Japanese games and culture are not valid, but if we work off the definition of eroge as Japanese games only, they're useless to determine whether a general, international genre exists. ansh666 21:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Re point 1: No, they are not at odds. Entertainment is not the only conceivable purpose of sexual arousal. Re point 2: I honestly don't think you seriously believe what you're saying. Do you dispute that many non-Japanese pornographic games exist? If so I can easily point you to, say, thirty of them (out of hundreds). Or do you want a reliable secondary source to say they exist in numbers? In that case see my source #9. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the first point. About the second, I do know they exist, but the question is whether they are considered a genre outside of Japan. Otherwise, claiming that they are is WP:OR. ansh666 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think the question of whether this is a proper genre or not is sidetracking the discussion here. The article doesn't purport to cover a genre and anyway whether or not it is a valid genre is a content question, not a deletion issue. The question is whether multiple RSes cover the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious to me that there are multiple RSes that cover the topic. This source provided by Sammy1339 above clearly does, as does this book, this book, this offline book, and this magazine. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody's claiming that there are not such games outside of Japan (yes there are 100s of homemade games on Newgrounds alone), but they rarely get coverage in RSs, so they are primarily not notable. The few times they do get even minor coverage, the concept of "porn games" is only mentioned in passing. Outside of Japan each of these games are seen as unique. And no, linking to a college student's term paper does not count as passing GNG. And even if it did, there cannot be enough content provided by any RSs to expand this between a definition which is easily understood by the combination of those words. People will come here and learn that a "pornographic video game" is a "video game" which is "pornographic"; no knowledge gained. There is no way that this isn't already covered better at the other articles linked above. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Infinity Blade III". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Infinity Blade 3 glitches and suggestions[edit]

Infinity Blade 3 glitches and suggestions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Infinity Blade 3 glitches and suggestions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This isn't formatted as an article. The author leaves there info at the top and has open questions to other editors (things that would make sense in the talk page) in the article itself. it's not even exactly clear what the topic is but whatever it is it's clearly a personal opinion piece with no references and no notability. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong delete not even a real article. --Jakob (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOR, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFORUM. LowLevel73(talk) 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: an editor has asked for a speedy deletion under WP:A10. I didn't ask for a speedy deletion because I wasn't able to find an applicable criteria and I'm not sure how A10 is relevant to the issue, here. I'm curious to see whether the article will be speedy deleted even if the cited criteria does not really apply. LowLevel73(talk) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete A10 might be OK, but anyway this'll go sooner or later. We don't have pages of suggestions, cheats, recipes, poems, stories on Wikipedia. (you find one, and if you don't know how to tag it, just tell me.) I wonder how some of these gamers would react if we went into their hallowed halls and didn't bother to find out what was what rules-wise. Why don't we have a forum area? We do, in a way. The Administrators' boards, the Village Pumps and so on. All about the encyclopaedia and its content, We're not going to open up forum space to all and sundry who aren't here to help build the encyclopaedia, but who want to swap tips on their games, or racing pigeons, or to post the recipe of the month. There are plenty of free forum hosts, and there's Facebook etc, not to mention wordpress and weebly. Wikipedia is not free web space. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Almost everyone agrees that there's no independent notability here, but there's roughly equal support for deleting and for redirecting. Either has the effect of removing the article from view, so there's little practical difference between the options. Since, however, there may well be BLP problems in the article's history, deleting seems the more prudent course. If anyone wants to create a redirect from this title to Gamergate controversy#GameJournoPros, he or she is free to do so. Deor (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros[edit]

GameJournoPros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GameJournoPros" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - When you had marked the page for speedy deletion, admin East718 ruled on the article's notability on the revision history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameJournoPros&action=history ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Marking something as "...makes assertion of notability..." is different than actually having notability. The article fails to provide notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Ars Technica piece does cover the topic in detail as do the Breitbart articles. The other articles are much more focused on the GamerGate connection. Ars Technica is an RS, but as far as I know Breitbart is not. The minimum inclusion criteria (WP:GNG) requires multiple RSes covering the topic in significant depth. My first impression is that I only see one... At a minimum, however, this should clearly be redirected to (if not merged into) GamerGate rather than simply deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'd love to see that, but I don't see that as feasible in the near future, given that the Wiki page on the Gamergate controversy is embroiled in an edit war, and any mention of the GJP groups is continually deleted. The GameJournoPros leaks are a noteworthy event, having been verified and commented on by its own members, and the information should be available to Wiki readers interested in the ongoing controversy.
According to the General Notability Guidelines you linked, there are five criteria that a topic must meet to be suitable for a standalone article.
  • Significant coverage: the GJP is more than a trivial mention in all of these sources (excluding Re/code, which is a glossary-like piece), and the guidelines state that it need not be the main topic (Gamergate) of the source material.
  • Reliable: Forbes is a reliable source, and the Editor's statements from Ars Technica, Polygon and GamePolitics regarding GJP, along with Usher's interview, are also reliable, as they are first-hand accounts from members (and in Orland's case, creator) of the Google Group. Breitbart is obviously a slanted news source, but all the leaked lists and email dumps have been verified by Orland, Grant, Fudge, and Usher, and Wiki policy states that reliable sources are not required to neutral or unbiased (WP:Bias). Also, Breitbart has been cited in its specific involvement in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, so there is a precedent.
  • Sources and independence from the subject are a bit a up in the air, as Orland, Grant and Fudge's articles could arguably be considered too "close" to the subject matter. I used the precedent set in the JournoList page, which featured official statements from J-list members defending their involvement.
  • Presumed: I think this one is clear. ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem for me really centers on the lack of significant coverage. We have Ars Technica kind of going into the history of the group and presenting context, but then all of the other article just cover the GamerGate related leaks. Even if it met GNG (and I think that's debatable) I'm having a difficult time imagining that the article could ever be more than a stub. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, such an outcome is not really an attractive option. Anyway it's not like there are no sources, the topic just seems more like an element of another topic to me. -Thibbs (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gamergate controversy. As mentioned by Thibbs, all but one source are about its relation to other events, mostly Gamergate but also JournoList. Woodroar (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Definitely not notable and WP:BLP issues up the wazoo. This was expressly excluded from the Gamergate controversy article for these reasons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gamergate controversy — essentially a WP:POVFORK attempt. Also, Breitbart is in no way acceptable as a reliable source for claims about what living people may or may not have done, and I have removed all information allegedly sourced to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, Non-notable. This looks like nothing more than a flimsy excuse to cite Breitbart conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

*Redirect to Gamergate controversy Needs only a mention (preferably more but we aren't allowed to support gg in any way shape or form) more in the main article, not enough notability to have its own article Retartist (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Since it was specifically rejected by Gamergate controversy, it seems improper to redirect it there. I agree that this seems like a POV fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The mailing list itself not notable in the slightest, the only link to notability is via its very minor role in the Gamergate controversy. I'm not even sure it is worth as redirect. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge with Gamergate controversy The mailing list is notable, sourced, and relevant enough to be mentioned in the Gamergate article. And it should be.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Most sources are about other events. However, I consider it a likely search term and a redirect would fill that need. Taketa (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. The list is not notable, but because of the furor of Gamergate, it is a very viable search term tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Q T C 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it's certainly a part of the Gamergate controversy and not independently notable, but it's a significant part and the article in question is getting quite long. (Dunno wiki policy on when it becomes too long, so I'm eyeballing it - by all means merge if it's not near the limit and we can cover this in detail in that article) Its existence has been confirmed by all parties involved and although a Breitbart reporter leaked its existence it is not the only outlet discussing it. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Existing does not denote independent notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Do you know what "not" means? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. I also know that it's not independently notable from Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    And my post agrees on that count, making a different argument for inclusion, so why did you feel the need to respond with that point? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    So if it's not independently notable from Gamergate, then it should not be kept. Your rationale does not match the proper way things are done on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOUT. I believe that's the issue and not WP:GNG Dreadstar 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent notability. 97.90.153.202 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not as notable, merging with gamergate controversy could be a good idea but I don't see any hope. Noteswork (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to GamerGate controversy even though it's a big part of GamerGate's foundation, I don't think it has been covered enough, and suspiciously, not at all by more mainstream media. Still I find the info on GPS on the GamerGate article lacking Loganmac (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not notable enough for an article or even a redirect. Stesmo (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Notability isn't a requirement for redirects. If it was notable then why would anyone redirect it? This is a closely related word so per WP:POFRED there is good reason to use it as a redirect. The goal of redirects is simple: to assist readers. If the term gets close to 40k GHITS then it's clearly an important search term. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to GamerGate controversy, which allows future potential for a quality improvement project, and maintains history, and redirects are cheap. — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow close. While not necessarily a hoax because the article was not claiming that a game would be made (actually claiming the opposite), there's nothing to show that we particularly need an article on this at this point in time. On a side note if the article's creator checks this, please understand that the one sentence stub you created could potentially be seen as an attack page by some, so please exercise more caution in the future. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Roller coaster tycoon 5[edit]

Roller coaster tycoon 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Roller coaster tycoon 5" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As far as I can tell this article technically doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. However, it consists entirely of one sentence of unverifiable speculation. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I believe WP:CRYSTALBALL still applies here even though it's saying something probably won't be made instead of saying it probably will. A bunch of other stuff applies too, obviously. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a poorly written article with one sentence, no categories, and is not of Wikipedia standards. --DrDevilFX (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The article qualifies for speedy deletion as a chat-like comment (WP:CSD#A3). Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A11 - Subject made up by creator (a hypothetical non-game) and no claim of significance. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
playing devils advocate here- rollercoaster tycoon world will soon be released following the release of rollercoaster tycoon 4 mobile - 4 as in for, not four- and it cna give the wrong impresion that rtc world will be rtc 5 to someone (while really it'll be rtc 4), so it's not invented (and rtc are a real game series too, i think theres a good chance well see rtc 5 and even 6, the sales werent as bad as the guy says... imo the article is just too soon created maybe redirect it to rtc world for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.104.221 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Snow Delete An unsourced, non-notable stub article in clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the justification given by Gene93k for speedy deletion doesn't work, I think it should still be deleted early since there is no way this article is going to be kept in any form. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete db-A3. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a stitch of reliable sourcing. Only 31k Ghits in total. Clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. Even if it were eligible for retaining we would lose nothing of value by deleting it in its current state. -Thibbs (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Groove Games. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Day Of The Zombie[edit]

Day Of The Zombie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Day Of The Zombie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Appears to not be notable - I could only find one item of RS coverage: [17]. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Would be fine if contained in the parent article—can always spin out summary style. It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD, as I doubt a redirect here would be controversial and deletion doesn't make sense if it can be a good redirect target. czar  21:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. There's nothing to really show that this game is notable outside of the parent company, so a redirect is best. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Groove Games. I don't see much, either. No entry at Metacritic, and there's almost nothing at MobyGames. That's usually a bad sign. It can be restored if reliable sources do show up eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per everyone else or delete. Major lack of sources found from a search. It's a basic, generic, 3D FPS game with zombies in it, hardly something the average reviewer is chomping at the bit to write a piece on. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Egoboo (video game)[edit]

Egoboo (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Egoboo (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Procedural nomination. Declined WP:PROD as the article has been nominated before - see the fairly inconclusive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoboo (computer game). Views welcome, having regard for those expressed in that earlier debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've heard of this, but sources are pretty thin. In a WP:VG/RS custom Google search, I found this Polish review, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. A quick google search provided me with these reviews: Zefz (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
   * Blog from roguelikedeveloper
   * Linux dev center
   * Software Informer
  • Comment. I think one of the reasons this is up here, is because Egoboo was really popular in early 2000s. It was one of the first big 3D games that was open-source and free, which was also a part of the Linux repository (most freeware games around that time seemed to be simple 2D platformer games and most were not open source). I can't find the sources for this claim however, it seems they are removed from the internet. Zefz (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not nearly enough to substantiate a full article. However, if the Linux Dev Center review (O'Reilly Media) counts as reliable, there should be enough for at least a worthy stubicle. I'm not convinced that the Blogspot review is reliable. czar  20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Prod nominator. If the only hit on WP:VG/RS is this short entry, it doesn't seem to suffice. However, Linux Dev rev presented by Czar seems decent, but I'd like to hear from VG/RS experts before reconsidering my vote. One decent review doesn't seem like much for notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The development of the game is currently halted, which is why there aren't any new reviews and only older. Should the development be resumed, so would the reviews. The game was sufficiently notable at the time:
   * http://archive09.linux.com/articles/22382
   * http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/13/egoboo.html
   * http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/27/egoboo_interview.html
   * http://roguelikedeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/10/review-egoboo.html
   * http://www.tigsource.com/2009/06/06/classic-egoboo/
   * http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/11/04/egoboo-is-a-fun-3d-rogue-like-game-for-windows-mac-and-linux/
   * http://dark.dark-gaming.net/?page_id=216
  • And that's just English sources. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Linux.com looks like it was freelance at the time with an edit policy, Switched.com is owned by Cnet, and I said above that Linux Dev Center might be okay, but I'm not sure that rest have the hallmarks of reliability. (This said, the few that exist should be enough for the general notability guideline.) czar  16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
roguelikedeveloper is Andrew Doull of PCG Wiki and Roguelike Radio.
TIGSource is an indie game journalism website by a group of indie developers, a particularly prominent member of which is Derek Yu of Spelunky fame.
The last source, no established notability.
--ConCelFan (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Even with those credentials, I don't see how those sites are reliable without some noted expertise in the topic or editorial oversight czar  14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
On reliability of TIGSource website:
               * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/tigsource/
               * http://venuspatrol.com/tag/tigsource-devlog/
--ConCelFan (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Piotrus - the sourcing is just atrocious, both in the article, and everything presented here so far. Not enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Block just under the Relisting. --ConCelFan (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's the strongest case, but between the four that I listed (from VGRS search), and Linux Dev Center, Switched, and Linux.com, shouldn't we be good? It's enough to cover a reception, development, and gameplay in fair enough detail czar  00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
ConcelFan - Yeah, I saw them. They're all very obscure. I see no reason that these obscure blogs like "Dark Gaming" meet the definition of a WP:RS. Czar - All of the sources are rather "borderline", or not discussing the subject in any sort of significant detail. "Inside Mac Games" or "Switched" are only a few sentences on the actual subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've admitted "Dark Gaming" not to have an established notability but for others, it's either sufficiently notable website or author. From the block's listing there are: 2 interviews and 4 reviews (last one not counted). --ConCelFan (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to your rationales for others either though. For example, take "Rougelike Developer". Your argument is that this self-published blogspot is reliable because the author, of who you've used a wordpress to identify his reliability, runs a wiki and a podcast? That's way off base as to how one would identify a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid. There are minuscule amounts of Roguelike-covering websites out there. And there still isn't a person to have an article on Wikipedia that is considered a Roguelike expert, from what I can tell. Considering the merits, that would be him. But finding coverage on Roguelike-covering websites and promoters is even harder. --ConCelFan (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, self-published sources can be useful for certain facts. No, the above blog posts aren't that kind of SPS, and even if they were, they wouldn't prove notability, which requires editorial distance: coverage in secondary/independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure this warrants further discussion. The Linux.com and Switched links are debatably acceptable, good finds. The other new links are no bueno, at least for AfD's sake czar  03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You missed my point entirely. I'm criticizing that you're arguing that a blogspot is reliable because you identified the writer in an interview from a wordpress, and said he's reliable because he has a Wiki and does his own podcast. The fact that you think that this demonstrates reliability shows that your understanding of Wikipedia's definition of reliable is fundamentally flawed. The argument is wrong on so many levels. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If you can find Roguelike-covering websites and promoters that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia, I'm all ears. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't. But that's a rationale for a "delete" !vote, not for using unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardian angel (video game)[edit]

Guardian angel (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Guardian angel (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable video game to be released. Creator of the article has a name that implies affiliation with the creator of the game. No sources. No related results on Google. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed, the game is not notable enough to merit a page. Indeed on the page itself it says, 'Not much info has been released.' No references are given to third party sources and nothing turns up on a Google search. I would suggest deleting it for now and recreating the article if, as we get closer to 2016, more information is released thereby increasing its notability and addressing the other concerns which have been made. Nyctimene (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is also worth mentioning that no proper article links to the page and it links to no other article. This, coupled with the fact that there are no Google hits for the game, make it incredibly unlikely anyone would search for the page. Nyctimene (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete IMHO "Currently in development" + "Not much info has been released" = WP:TOOSOON. BTW There are some platforming flash game out there that is also called Guardian Angel(s) apparently, and that is just plain NN. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I think "TOOSOON" is generous. This article is about something that not only doesn't exist and has no proof it ever WILL exist, much less be notable enough for an article. EBY (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

LimitPblank[edit]

LimitPblank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "LimitPblank" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable product: doesn't seem to exist anywhere except WP. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I PRODed this but the creator removed it. There's no indication of notability at all, and no Google hits other than the WP article itself and a mirror of the creator's user talk page. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Could probably be done under A7 or A11. No secondary sources anywhere to even confirm that this game exists or will exist. Cannolis (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: A7 doesn't apply to products, unfortunately. Kolbasz (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Zero notability and credibility. WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MADEUP, take your pick. Kolbasz (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The above comments state the reason quite well. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as he won the election before the discussion was closed. Sourcing and content updates are needed, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Jay Obernolte[edit]

Jay Obernolte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jay Obernolte" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a small (pop. 5K) town and as an unelected candidate for election to the state legislature. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — mayors of big cities pass it while mayors of small towns don't, whereas a state assembly candidate must win, not merely run in, the election to claim notability on that basis. Further, this article as written is relying predominantly on primary sources — his own biography on the city's website, the websites of organizations mentioned in the text, etc. — rather than reliable ones, and the number of legitimate sources here is not sufficient to claim WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but in the meantime this is effectively a campaign brochure, which is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians are designed to weed out. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable as a politican and lacks the coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable outside of just running for California State Assembly and being a Mayor of a small city. A quick google search, news search, books search, and google scholar search all produce more than enough hits/results confirming notability. The article does need more references, which are available, but that is not any reason to delete it. Meatsgains (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Google Scholar gets a whopping five hits, of which three are archives of the university newspaper at the university he graduated from (not a source that can confer notability) and the other two are just cursory, non-substantive passing mentions. Basic Google search brings up his own campaign literature and social networking links; Google News search brings up campaign coverage and nothing else. So if he's notable for anything other than being a smalltown mayor and an unelected assembly candidate, it would help immeasurably if you'd actually explain and properly source something he's notable for. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Go ahead and take a look at the recent reliable sources I added to the page, of which don't deal with his campaign. Perhaps this article or this article are notable and deserve mentioning in the BLP, giving Obernolte more notability.
Below are some of the reliable sources I added (none touching on his campaign):
Still not notable? How many RS are you wanting? Meatsgains (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing does not mean you can just add any web page that happens to have his name in it — it has to be substantive coverage of a significant and notable achievement in a specific range of acceptable media sources. But these all fail one or more of those conditions: No Regrets simply mentions his name a single time in a single paragraph about his private, personal and non-encyclopedic hobby of martial arts. He's not the subject of the Forbes article; it's about an airplane manufacturing company, and he merely happens to be mentioned briefly as a person who happens to own one of their planes. Nintendo Life is an interview with him, but it's a core principle of AFD that interviews with the topic cannot demonstrate their notability — they're acceptable for additional sourcing of facts after you've added enough sources to cover off his basic notability, but because of their self-promotional aspects they cannot count toward the establishment of his notability. Racing Jets is just a promotional blurb on the website of an organization he's directly involved with, not coverage in media — it's a primary source. And Pilot Journal is only covering him in the context of the private plane.
So none of those sources demonstrate that he warrants an article in an encyclopedia. All they've added is "does martial arts" and "owns a private plane", neither of which is a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article — so you still haven't demonstrated that he's notable for anything besides being a small-town mayor and unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your explanation and insight. Would the CNN article/event I noted add to his notability or would that fall under WP:ONEEVENT? Also, he is the Founder and President of FarSight Studios, a video game development studio, which seems notable. It would be my suggestion to postpone deletion until after the election is over. If we wins, we keep the article as a California Assemblyman is notable but if he loses, we can delete the article. What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The CNN articles still wouldn't really help — he's not their subject, but is merely quoted briefly commenting on the thing that is. The video game studio might certainly get him over our inclusion standards for businesspeople, but leading a company doesn't automatically get a person into Wikipedia either — what would be necessary is significant reliable source coverage in which the video game company itself is the substance of what he's getting covered for. (Mentioning it as background in coverage of the candidacy doesn't satisfy that.)
One other thing it's important to understand about AFD is that a deletion result here is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — it's merely a judgement on the specific version of the article that exists at the time of the discussion. If we delete an article about an unelected candidate, and then he goes on to win the election in the end, then his basic notability claim has changed and a new article about him is allowed to be recreated again. If we delete a promotional PR-kit article about a musician who has yet to actually release his first album, but then once he finally does release the album it turns into a big hit and makes him a major celebrity who gets lots of press coverage, then he does get to have an article again. People's basic notability claims can change, the availability of sourcing about them can change, and on and so forth — and if those things happen, then you can start a new article about them again regardless of what AFD has done in the past (the only thing you're not allowed to do is recreate the same version without improving the sourcing or the notability claim.)
And we even have the ability to restore previously deleted articles, so even the work that's already been done here isn't going to be permanently lost if the article does need to be recreated after the election. So we don't postpone consideration of articles about unelected candidates until after the election is over, because deleting it today doesn't preclude recreation or restoration in the future if circumstances change. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait or Redirect to article about election per WP:POLOUTCOMES & WP:BIO1E. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary and secondary reliable sources, however almost all of them are regarding the subject as a candidate for a California Assembly race. Therefore, those fall under notability for a single event, and thus per WP:BIO1E, if the subject of this AfD loses, the appropriate thing is to redirect to the event which the subject is notable for, in this an election. As today is election day here in California, we shall no in the next 24 hours if the subject has been elected, if the subject has the subject is automatically notable as being a member of a sub-national assembly per WP:POLITICIAN, therefore I suggest we wait 24 hours before making any decisions.
As for the links above No Regrets, it is produced by a self-publishing company, thus falls under WP:SPS, and is not notable, the rest are only brief mentions and are not significant coverage. The one that is significant coverage is the interview from NintendoLife, but one interview does not make for notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Appears the subject will likely be meeting WP:POLITICIAN (66.2% of the vote with 14.4% of precinct reporting as of this post), therefore this AfD will be moot soon, and thus the article should be keeped.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it looks like he won after all and I'm accordingly withdrawing this nomination. That said, however, the article still needs to be rewritten to put the weight and the referencing where it belongs — as of right now, two full days after the election results were announced, it still says he's a candidate rather than the member-elect. And also, just for the record, in the future please don't make speculative presumptions based on where the vote stands after just 16.6 per cent of the ballots have been counted; leads can flip as more of the results are tabulated — it has actually really happened, believe it or not, that the person who was trailing at 99.9 per cent of the vote count actually flipped into the lead in the final 0.1 per cent. So just because a person happens to be leading at any given point during the count doesn't necessarily always mean they're guaranteed to win. It doesn't kill anyone on here to wait until all 100 per cent of the votes have been counted. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A Small Favor[edit]

A Small Favor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "A Small Favor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A flash game from Newgrounds. Has no citations in the article and there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources to give it notability. GamerPro64 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: There was an unsuccessful Kickstarter campaign last year that generated some press. I don't have time to check them all right now, but it's possible some of those sources could be usable. Reach Out to the Truth 14:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete many utterly trivial thing at Kickstarter generate some routine press stories. It's time we stopped counting that as significant coverage. That the campaign was unsuccessful is a pretty strong hint that it might well be non-notable as well (though there are of course exceptions). DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't find any more than a few mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Trade In Detectives[edit]

Trade In Detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Trade In Detectives" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable website sourced to press releases and passing mentions; fails substantial coverage test. Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pre-owned-price-comparison-site-trade-in-detectives-goes-live/0119776
http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/08/new-site-offers-trade-in-price-comparisons-in-the-uk/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-09-uk-game-trade-in-price-comparison-site-launches
http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a505266/trade-in-comparison-site-launches-in-uk.html#~oSIE7b6bhgxSp7
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-03-myth-busting-the-murky-world-of-video-game-trade-ins
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/21/this-weeks-games-news
A bunch of the other sources currently used in the article are unreliable. Don't see any obvious potential merge targets, so keep would be best for now. czar  01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite a blatant spamvert, with the usual slew of well-formatted non-references typical of paid-for "articles". All of them including the ones above are based on the same press release which accompanied its launch plus a very brief mention in The Guardian (also coinciding with its launch). There is no evidence whatsoever, of independent in-depth coverage of this company/website. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete pure promotionalism, just as Voceditenore says. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu[edit]

Brianna Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brianna Wu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails to establish her personal notability. As far as I can tell, she is mostly known for the Revolution 60 mobile game she co-developed and the supposed death threats she recently received over GamerGate-related tweets. Don Cuan (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The WP:VG/RS articles that mention her are primarily about Giant Spacekat or Revolution 60. There are a variety of worthwhile mentions that cite her on her authority as a game designer: [18][19][20] and at least one related to sexism in the industry: [21]. The CNET source used in the article is more about the game or the company than about her. (This said, the game has enough reviews from reliable sources to warrant its own article.) I'm putting this here now in advance of what will inevitably be a shitstorm proxy war (note to those new to Wikipedia, canvassing is not allowed, articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), and the result will be based on consensus, not counting !votes): the article topic has demonstrated notability through significant coverage as an industry figure, even though Wu does not have any articles (from secondary, vetted sources) dedicated to her career. Giant Spacekat (the company) is synonymous with Wu (sometimes with her name in place of the company), but should redirect to her article as she has vastly more coverage than the company as an entity. If the series of mentions of her work is considered too weak, the only other feasible option would be redirecting her article to Revolution 60, but even that would be to discount all the mentions of her as an industry figure, including the recent, full articles (from reliable, secondary, independent sources) about the threats mentioned in the nomination. czar  14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • All the links you provided only cover her tangentially. She is mentioned as part of a panel, as well as among about a dozen of other game developers, designers etc. in the Gamasutra article. (While I know that other stuff doesn't exist isn't a deletion argument in itself, I might add that only one of them has an article himself.) Similar for the Polygon article on checkpoints. I simply don't see her individual notability outside of that one, recent event that probably also motivated starting the article. For which most of the sources I've read so far seem to be little more than a digest of her own Twitter posts.
I do agree that Revolution 60 potentially warrants an article. But unless this is the only major game Miss Wu is going to make, we shouldn't use her name as a redirect to it.Don Cuan (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I made it clear that almost all of the links are mentions and not in-depth articles. (Then I made a case for why Wu nonetheless had sigcov as an industry reference if not for the depth of articles about her.) The rest is interpretation. I've written about indie games for several months here now—it's totally normal to redirect a creator's name to their creation, especially if it's a worthwhile search term. Due to this alone, this discussion would have been better off on the article's talk page since deletion isn't actually on the table. czar  01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did make that clear they are not in-depth. But I disputed that these articles constitute significant coverage of her, because frankly… they simply don't. They are little more than trivial mentions. You can't just deduce that she is an important industry figure because two articles used a few quotes from her. And if I hadn't taken this here, it wouldn't have gotten the same attention. Don Cuan (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, as creator, for essentially the reasons evoked by Czar above. Wu is the focus of much gaming press coverage because of the recent threats she received, and I figured a brief article would be interesting to readers because of that. While the threats alone would be a case of WP:BLP1E, the coverage she (and her company, which are to a degree interchangeable, as well as her game) received previously make her (together with her company and game) meet our inclusion requirements (WP:N). Like Czar, I believe that an article about her as a person provides the best scope for coverage of her game and company as well, at least initially until somebody writes an article about the game, which has probably enough coverage for an article of its own as well.  Sandstein  18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. For much of what Czar has to say. It appears that she is also notable for being a frequent contributor of articles on feminism and gaming. This could be a single event topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can tell. What concerns me the most is that the article was nominated for deletion within a day of being created. There was no talk discussion and the article doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. Edit Ferret (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being - I'd redirect the article to Revolution 60 as soon as the game article exists. Instead of an article on a notable work, we get what amounts to another Gamergate NOTNEWS BLP1E distraction. - hahnchen 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep because there's no point in delaying the inevitable. Technically, BLP1E does not apply since she appears to be extremely self-promotional for someone who is supposed to be in hiding. It only applies to low-profile individuals who aren't rushing to get their faces in front of as many cameras as possible.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I can see giving her extensive mention in the Gamergate controversy article, but that's hardly "delaying the inevitable" unless we're going to start covering others involved in the whole fracas.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - she's gotten lots of media coverage, as noted above. Disclosure: I met her husband, Frank Wu, and got his autograph, at a con in Boston. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but as written it reads too much like a resume and self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.211.130 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article in its current form was largely written by Elonka, who I'm reasonably certain is not Brianna Wu. Feel free to suggest improvements on the talk page.  Sandstein  05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Correct, I am not Brianna Wu, and to my knowledge have never met her. Any and all established Wikipedia editors are welcome to edit the article, too. For newer editors who may be prevented from editing the article at the moment, constructive suggestions for specific improvements to the article are welcome, and as Sandstein mentioned, the best place to post them is at Talk:Brianna Wu. --Elonka 13:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - I guess I'm going against the trend, but I'm going to have to go with one event here. Looking through the sources, of the significant ones almost all are about her in relation to the death threats through GamerGate. (One predates the death threats, but is still related to sexual harassment and GamerGate). Most of the sources aren't reliable, or are predominately about the company she cofounded or the game they developed - perhaps enough to warrant an article on the company, but I'm not convinced that there's enough to warrant an article about her. - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Most of the best sources seem related to GamerGate, but there look to be sufficient coverage about her and her other work to keep. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cited sources suffice to meet WP:GNG and skate by WP:BLP1E. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has nothing to do with the article and is simply an attack against the subject of the page. I notice the GamerGate page also includes mention of their association with misogyny and anti-feminism, yet no attempts have been made to delete it. This conversation never should have begun. Tpstigers (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. No germane arguments have been made for deletion of this article. It meets all community requirements for notability and biographies of living persons. --Locriani (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The nominator fails to advance arguments for deleting the article, and in fact sets out why she is notable. (If she wasn't before the recent harassment incidents, which is debatable, she certainly is now.) Robofish (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - We've had articles deleted of people who have done more, and the article feels more like a hagiograph than a standard Wiki entry. As Bilby says, there's more than enough to discuss the company, with her entry redirected to that, but unless she's been at multiple companies putting multiple games in, I'll have to say no. The death threats may be tragic, but if that's the sole validator, we'd probably use up the world's bandwidth on everyone who ever met that description.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus for a block delete of all these articles and significant arguments for keeping. There may possibly be a case for deletion of some individually, but such a consensus is unlikely in a mass nomination and they will need to be nominated again individually. There is some traction for the idea of merging into a list article. That is a matter for editors to discuss outside of AFD as it is a matter for editor discretion, not deletion policy. SpinningSpark 16:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill[edit]

Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked for WikiProject Video games approved sources and used our custom Google search, but I'm only finding primary sources and user-submitted review/database material. Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also including the following games for the same reason:
Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill Remastered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Stay Tuned for Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Message in a Haunted Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Treasure in the Royal Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: The Final Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Ghost Dogs of Moon Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Trail of the Twister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Alibi in Ashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: The Silent Spy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: The Shattered Medallion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew: Labyrinth of Lies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy Drew Dossier: Lights, Camera, Curses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that several of these games do have a single review at Adventure Gamers, but we're not able to write an article around a single review. Woodroar (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't searched for sourcing yet, but I do think that at this point it'd be a good idea to create a list page for these games and have them all redirect there. The overall Nancy Drew page is pretty large and at this point it'd be reasonable to have a list page for the games as a whole, although most of it would be about the Her Interactive games since those are the majority. I'd recommend something like List of Nancy Drew video games, I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talkcontribs) 12:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Tokyogirl's suggestion. The problem IMO is that individual games may not be notable enough, but all Nancy Drew games in one list could stand well as a split from Nancy Drew the franchise. The infoboxes and/or texts (trimmed to one to two paragraphs) could be reused to suitably provide more information than just a list of names if wanted. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge, I located enough sources to fairly conclusively establish notability for that article. It took a while, but I also fixed up the article. I was going to edit the others in the series, but when I saw how many there were and how poorly they were written, I gave up. Unless that video game in the series was a complete anomaly, I think it highly likely that the rest of these articles are also notable. I guess I can dedicate the entire day to rewriting these articles, but it's not something I look forward to. I suggest people look at Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge and WP:VG/RS to find reliable sources for these articles. I guess I'll vote to keep later, once I've actually validated that sources exist for these articles. Given the number of articles nominated, it may take me a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I did some searching and so far it looks like most of the games didn't get any coverage because of how many there are- the whole "law of diminished returns" thing in effect, I guess. I'm going to try to sit down and really do some hardcore searching for the others. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Your Google-Fu—or Highbeam-Fu—is greater than my Google-Fu. I appreciate the additional sources, and agree that a list article would be a good idea. From my initial searches, it seemed like the games in the middle of the series seem to have 7-9 reviews each, and the outliers none at all. Of course, even the games with numerous reviews don't have proper reception sections. Ugh. Woodroar (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly keep, with the exception of Labyrinth of Lies, which seems to have very little coverage. Also, I guess it would make sense to merge the remastered game into the main article. I had trouble finding independent sources for that. Here's what I found:

These are primarily sources vetted by WP:VG/RS. There are a few other sources that I didn't take the time to actually validate, because, honestly, I think I've done enough work. Of course, MobyGames isn't a reliable source, but it links to many reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or Merge. Argument by NRP and the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is very helpful. However, creating a list of Nancy Drew games may be a good alternative. They seem to have issues with individual notability, but the franchise as a series is notable enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I've since created the individual page for List of Nancy Drew video games, so any games that are lacking in overall notability can have their information merged into that article. It's a little bare bones now, but I figure that we can all work and put the individual data in there for the various games. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep all (except a merge for the remastered games) pet NRP who has demonstrated the notability of every single game. Bad faith AFDs by Woodroar who, it appears, didn't run a simple Google Search. The list by tokyogirl is a valued addition too. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Coin945: I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that I did look for sources, which is why I nominated only half of the games with articles. Although in retrospect, I relied mostly on Metacritic and my memory of WP:VG/RS-vetted general sources and overlooked the fact that genre-specific sources like Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure were on the list as well. (For some reason, I thought they were user-submitted fan sites and didn't dig further.) Consider myself trouted. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. Woodroar (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - you helped to bring these poorly written articles to our attention. :D Wikipedia is all about collaboration. Please can you help us to improve each of these Nancy drew video game articles using the sources NRP found in order to make them all awesome.--Coin945 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I was planning on that when the AfD is over but I suppose there's nothing wrong with doing it first. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Several ideas are presented herein; relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep based on the sources and argument provided by NRP. As for WP:V, a topic only "fails" WP:V if the topic unverifiable which obviously is not the case here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect - The page List of Nancy Drew video games will do a sufficient job of covering these games. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Dennis - 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

GeoLotto[edit]

GeoLotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GeoLotto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG with abt. 6500 Google hits. Also (self?)promo for this in mid September 2014 launched lottery. The Banner talk 15:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The former name GeoSweep also brings up less than 6k hits. The Banner talk 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Camping (gaming)[edit]

Camping (gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Camping (gaming)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

It has several issues, like original research, how to content, and written like a debate. It also has two sources. Does this even matter? EMachine03 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) EMachine03 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - essay and original research. LS1979 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Found a previous discussion from five years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camping_(video_gaming) . Seems that a suggested rewrite hasn't happened and this can really be Merged into the Glossary Salvidrim has suggested. LS1979 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That might just work! However, we might need some more consensus. EMachine03 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge to glossary. It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD—page probably could have been merged with little fanfare. So "camping" has coverage, but not quite enough to source more than a few good definitions on its variations and maybe some examples. I doubt most of the 27kB of OR at hand here can be sourced. Might be worth differentiating between spawn/base and other kinds of camping in the glossary, though. Some sources: [71][72][73][74] czar  04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Glossary of video game terms. It can always be recreated later if more sources are found to demonstrate notability. A WP:VG/RS search turns up results, of course, but the hits are generally not in depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or selective merge to Glossary of video game terms. I seem to have a little more faith in the notability of the subject than others here, but not a lot more. The camper isn't just an activity or tactic but a quasi-character and trope that comes up repeatedly in fan fiction, etc. (see Diary of a Camper, one of the earliest and best known Machinimas). Some other sources that talk specifically about camping: Kotaku - In Defense of the Camper, Conference paper - Playing Dirty, and also things like this: "That's not the way you play the game" -- about camping operating under thea ssumption readers know what it means [or will understand per the Reddit post title]. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I'm supporting keeping the article as a notable subject -- the content goes overboard and would need to be substantially edited. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cloudcade[edit]

Cloudcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cloudcade" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable company. Article is based solely on a publicity event held by the company's founders. The company is "planning to create games" but has not yet released any product. Note WP:COI author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 18:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm torn on this one. The nomination sounds good, but there's already at least 3 reliable sources that dedicate whole articles to the subject... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
And the third party reliable sources covering the topic in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Any spam/COI/promotional tones are unfortunate...but reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Regardless of the shoddy state its currently in, it does meet the WP:GNG through significant coverage in third party reliable sources.
  1. http://www.pocketgamer.biz/asia/news/60087/idg-capital-drops-155-million-on-cloudcade-to-drive-f2p-innovation/
  2. http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/08/cloudcade-raises-1-55m-for-mid-core-mobile-game-studio-with-a-global-focus/
  3. http://gamasutra.com/view/news/227347/Another_veteranstaffed_startup_nets_155M_to_make_mobile_games.php
  4. The Dow Jones
  5. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-09-mobile-studio-cloudcade-raises-USD1-55-million
  6. http://www.montrealinternational.com/en/news/2014/10/cloudcade-opens-office-greater-montreal/
The game is receiving coverage in both video game and economics-related sources, which honestly, is a lot broader than many notable topics in the video game world. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment All of the coverage appears to be based on the single fact that this company managed to raise $1.55M in the venture capital market. And that coverage all seems to stem from a single press conference that the company had to announce that fact. Perhaps the gaming industry is starved for any useful news these days, but a company isn't notable for merely raising money, it is notable for producing notable products, which this one has not yet done. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how/why, each of the sources are definitely third party and discussing the subject in significant detail. I've provided six sources that have a consensus for being reliable, and there's more out there. There's easily enough content for a good stub here. Spin it however you like, it certainly meets the bare minimum of what is defined by the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this startup is going to prove notable. Is the threshold of notability that a company got press for receiving seed money? With respect to User:Sergecross73's industry finding sources, they represent, at least IMHO, routine gaming business news. Lots of start-ups get seed money, and most of them don't pan out. This is normal in business. Thousands of these articles are published every day, just like sports scores. Since notability is not temporary, this narrow discussion has no way of determining notability before the company gets a single customer interaction. BusterD (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are sources, but they're routine stuff, barely better than directory entries. I don't think it amounts to substantial coverage, as required by the GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Comment. I'm not sure why this fact hasn't been mentioned here, but the page creator was blocked just minutes after creating this entirely promotional page because the account name was a blatant violation of WP:CORPNAME. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment It hasn't been mentioned because it's largely irrelevant. Whether or not the creator had good or ill intentions in creating this page, we should be deciding whether the subject merits an article, not whether the current article is valid. If the subject merits coverage, then we can improve the article. But if, as I argue, they do not merit coverage, then there is no point in improving the article. But the article stand or falls on the notability of the company, not on the intentions of the author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment. I can't argue with what User:WikiDan61 said; the comments are certainly within pillars, policy, and guideline. I've made my comment on the merits above. However, under only slightly different circumstances, somebody might have G11ed this page and we wouldn't be having this very civil discussion about the contributions of a blocked user. We do delete pages summarily for being purely promotional. There's something about suicide pact here which deserves a better forum than this narrow process. BusterD (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Comment True, but I didn't find this page that exceptionally promotional. Opinions vary, I suppose. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Comment. IMHO, the company nakedly used Wikipedia in order to raise its corporate profile days after a press conference announcing major capital infusion. That's the very definition of promotional. This strategy, if successfully used, makes Wikipedia just another tool in an investment manager's playbook. I have issues with that, thus my comment about the page creator. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Comment I see your point. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Comment - The fact that this had to be re-listed at AFD is probably a sign that it's not quite as clear-cut as you think, and wouldn't have been a good speedy deletion candidate. Even now, we've only got the input of a handful of editors. This is usually the type of article that I totally rewrite and re-source to show that there's clearly enough coverage and content here to meet the WP:GNG. I'm just not that motivated to do that since I'm not all that big on mobile gaming, and don't especially feel inclined to help out a company that clearly went out of their way to use Wikipedia as a means of personal promotion... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Sorry if I seemed to go on a rant there... BusterD (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Considering the lack of discussion, I think a non-consensus close is unavoidable. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TwinGo![edit]

TwinGo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "TwinGo!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of lasting notability. No reliable sources either .I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Mad Acorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both. So while many people are not happy about the page creator's rapid stubbing using only a sentence from Metacritic, when brought to AfD (and ideally before AfD), a WP:VG/RS search shows that the article has sufficient sourcing. The reviews from Gamezebo, 148apps, and Pocket Gamer are all vetted RS and provide sufficient material for making gameplay and reception sections. This said, I'd also entertain a redirect to its developer, Chillingo, since the one-sentence stub isn't doing anyone any favors and anyone is welcome to expand a stub summary style as much as one is welcome to expand a redirect. As for Mad Acorn, which isn't similar to this game and likely shouldn't have been bundled, reviews from the same sources are available (see its Metacritic page). Its developer does not have a page, so it doesn't have the option of being redirected. czar  14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 17:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayan Bera[edit]

Sayan Bera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sayan Bera" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Contested PROD, PROD rationale was: "BLP with not a single reliable source, cited sources are message boards, self-published, and/or don't mention this person." Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources means notability is not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete clearly not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. Google turns up mainly social media sites and fora. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and there is no indication of importance, even it appears to be self-promotion. — CutestPenguinHangout 06:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not significant to have a wikipedia article. Run-of-the-millWP:MILL Athachil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete; looks like a test page to me, and also invoking WP:SNOW. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What to buy[edit]

What to buy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "What to buy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Self-proclaimed original research. Appears to be a guide suggesting what games to buy, but comes from the author's personal opinions and is not cited. Blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete now per nom. This isn't an article in any real sense. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTBLOG because it looks like blog post material to me. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete as just somebody's opinion. Surely this must fall under one of the speedy criteria?! Keresaspa (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious Delete Opinion rant.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is this an AfD? No speedy delete available?--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that any of the criteria really fit here, although there ideally would be one that does. ansh666 03:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and early close per WP:SNOW, for obvious enough reasons. ansh666 03:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 7 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Speedy delete under G5 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

5 arcade gems[edit]

5 arcade gems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "5 arcade gems" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This is in no way notable: there are no references to prove notability. This doesn't warrant a separate article either. st170etalk 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As it happens it was created by a block evading sock puppet, so it could probably be speedily deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Only one editor argued for keeping the article, and that editor did not support their argument. Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Games[edit]

Phoenix Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Phoenix Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As per the rationale on the talk page, the most that we could gather about the company is from internet memes, anecdotes on blogs about the publisher's games being of dubious quality and the like. So far Phoenix's shoestring business model has led to them being all but ignored by the mainstream gaming press like Kotaku or IGN - unless if they take a gander at the games, and if the said articles receive a lot of attention, I'd say we should have this one deleted for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the one mentioned from the talk page, I'm copying my response here for posterity:

    I don't think this topic meets the general notability guideline. These are the best sources I was able to find: [75][76]—both cover the company but don't have nearly enough to write a full article about the company. There are also passing mentions in: [77][78][79] and some product announcements: [80][81][82]. The quick synopsis of the previous links is that the company is known for shovelware and is briefly lambasted for it in listicles, and the name also shows in some press release-y product announcements for games that do not have enough coverage for even their own sections in a parent article. I wanted to check if anyone had additional sourcing before I take this to AfD. czar  14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no responses until now. czar  20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Missed this link from the previous AfD: [83]. Still don't think it's enough—the srcs are mainly to disparage the dev and give little to no info to base an encyclopedia article. czar  09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
And @Czar: the Fung Wan Online one (your 8th link) is about a completely different company, maybe from Chengdu according to Baidu Baike (not RS). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
KYM is indeed unreliable (user-submitted), and I'm almost entirely sure that my link 8 is Phoenix. I believe they had a Malaysian branch, and this would be it. czar  03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - This company, although obscure, has earned some notoriety. BrayLockBoy (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless if major gaming websites take notice of the company or the memes that spawned from their games (see Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom), this would indeed, as one editor put it, be mired in obscurity. Phoenix skimped on marketing their games, hence why most news sites were practically unaware or turned a blind eye on them. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reason I created one of the company's video games, Animal Soccer World, was because I thought it had enough sources to meet the GNG guidelines. Not the company that made this game. And although Animal Soccer World was merged into this article, I still believe this company fails the GNG guidelines. good888 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Smosh Games[edit]

Smosh Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Smosh Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No third-party sources provided to demonstrate it is notable (except Tubefilter which is just a blogsite for youtube content). Merge anything that might be worth merging, and delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I deleted the article shortly after it was created, but reverted that two days later, I can't remember why. At the time the only third party source was Tubefilter, and it still is, perhaps Soulbust can further explain the notability of the subject. ZappaOMati and I have mostly been patrolling for vandalism and keeping it up to date, making us the largest editors. Otterathome, I assume by merge, you mean Smosh? 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 05:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Such as? czar  00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to Smosh (parent article). All WP:VG/RS custom Google search hits were for "Honest Games Trailers", which might be able to support its own article (though I wouldn't push it—just build it within the parent and only spin out if necessary). Other than winning the "Streamy", I couldn't find coverage of Smosh Games from news sources, so it makes sense to merge it into its closest article and build out summary style until more sourcing is available. Current article sourcing is mostly primary and the rest is unreliable or passing mentions. czar  00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Smosh. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I added new references Soulbust (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

October 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ProudNet[edit]

ProudNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ProudNet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

advertising and fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - I cleaned up the advertisement and listspam, and what remains isn't even enough for me to understand what ProudNet is supposed to be. Unsourced and unsourceable to any reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – it's a non-article. EBY (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, such as a developer or a game that uses the technology. (The only one that mentions it is Vindictus and that part isn't even sourced.) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Advert. Failure of GNG Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notabilty. Article fails WP:GNG as a result of insignificant coverage to reliable sources.Wikicology (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG, the nom, Salvidrim, etc. There's virtually no content left anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit - I have recognized the problem and edited with an objective point of view. hyej (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2014 (GMT)

For the record, the article still has no sources czar  14:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced advert by non-notable e-tech company.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete As with everyone else above, I can't find any sources that establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit - I would like you to refer to http://www.nettention.com/en/down/proudnet.pdf . there are explanations related to reatures. hyej (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2014 (GMT)

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

October 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Yes there very likily will be an article about this game in the future, but for now it is a WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. If you want to redirect F1 201 (video game) so be it, however I don't see this title as a viable search term. kelapstick(bainuu) 11:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled eighth-generation Codemasters Formula One project[edit]

Untitled eighth-generation Codemasters Formula One project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Untitled eighth-generation Codemasters Formula One project" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL case - Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. There is no content in this article, the author doesn't even have a name. The only source is a blog post in which this project is briefly mentioned. - hahnchen 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. ansh666 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Czar's move/redirect suggestion does make sense, I'd be fine with that. ansh666 19:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete When someone from the company doesn't know the name of the product at all? Maybe that's saying 'don't create an article about it yet'. WP:CRYSTAL and what company has ever put out a new product then said 'hey, we got this coming out soon, thanks for the free $60 on this inferior product, sucker'? Nate (chatter) 17:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:HAMMER 69.166.78.85 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: The project is notable as it is the first Formula One game on an eighth-generation console. Its development was closely tied to F1 2014 to the point where it directly affected F1 2014. The article name is representative of the way the game will be a departure from other titles in the series. If the article was still called F1 2015, the person nominating the article for deletion would not have bothered; the only reason why there is an AfD in the first place is because he didn't get his way in the article. There has been no consultation with any editors involved in related articles, so this whole thing amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. The developer has already given details of when an announcement will be made (which cannot be included for obvious reasons), which will come to pass in the space of about a week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this is WP:TOOSOON, technically the article does not currently pass WP:N. There is no need to jump the gun with articles so soon after the merest scrap of information becomes available. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to draft (will leaving a redirect) until name will be clear. 178.93.237.66 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Codemasters (or Formula One video games) after moving back to F1 2015 (video game). Blah, blah, yes, hammer. "F1 2015 (video game)" is a worthwhile search term and there are a few sentences to extract from:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/07/31/f1-2014-announced-next-gen-game/
http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a587684/f1-2014-unveiled-franchise-will-debut-on-ps4-xbox-one-in-2015.html
http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/31/f1-2014-pc-ps3-xbox-360-release-date/
to plop at either Codemasters or Formula One video games. Better than outright deletion for not knowing its name. czar  01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd say keep, we will soon be finding out more about this game and the page will just have to be recreated, keep it and we will build upon it as information is released. CDRL98 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.