Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk   Talk page archive talk
Manual of style Article guidelines talk Templates talk Sources talk
Departments Assessment talk   Requests talk Collaboration 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
Task forces Arcade talk Atari talk Atlus talk BioWare talk Castlevania talk Command & Conquer talk Destroy All Humans! talk Devil May Cry talk Dungeons & Dragons talk The Elder Scrolls talk Gears of War talk Grand Theft Auto talk id Software talk Indie New! talk Insomniac talk Mega Man talk Mortal Kombat talk MUD talk Nintendo talk PlayStation talk Pro gaming talk Retro games New! talk Sega talk Silent Hill talk The Sims talk Soul talk StarCraft talk Suikoden talk Valve talk Visual novels Joint TF! talk Warcraft talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk Project members talk
Project watchlist view • talk • edit • changes

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.

February 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

List of Games2win games

List of Games2win games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Games2win games" – news · books · scholar · free images)

A unreferenced list of unnotable software entries which doesn't have their own wikipedia entry. Clearly a case of WP:NOT. mabdul 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ear Force X31

Ear Force X31 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ear Force X31" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested PROD. I repeat the same rationale behind the PROD: Non-notable headset that has already been discontinued. Perhaps a mention of the series of headphones in the Turtle Beach Systems article, but I don't see how a specific headphone such as this warrants a separate article. --MuZemike 21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --MuZemike 21:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Battle of the Gods

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of the Gods

Articles for deletion/Battle of the Gods (2nd nomination)

Battle of the Gods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Battle of the Gods" – news · books · scholar · free images)

There are no links within the article to demonstrate notability, IE reliable non-trivial secondary sources. I've searched and found none. The developer still has a web presence, which worked fine an hour ago but now doesn't want to work for me. Regardless, the Kickstarter funding attempt failed (which in itself was just to generate a high-quality trailer to pitch to publishers) and I think enough time has passed to say that the sourcing will not become available until something tangible is released by the developers. Someoneanother 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Someoneanother 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON since the game hasn't been released yet and there's no concrete date beyond sometime in 2012. I wasn't able to find any reliable and independent sources to show that this game meets the notability guidelines required for something that hasn't been released yet. If it does get made it's likely that it'll get publicity, but at this point in time there just isn't anything independent or reliable to back up the claims in the article. The only hits that come back about this game appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia and primary sources such as the Steel Toe website. As cool as this game sounds, it's a delete per WP:CRYSTAL.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

February 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Mitzi McGilvray

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mitzi McGilvray

Articles for deletion/Mitzi McGilvray (2nd nomination)

Mitzi McGilvray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mitzi McGilvray" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable person. No further evidence for notability is the past three years. Previous discussion was more about inherited than inherent notability. Thompson Is Right (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment One of the two references mentions them, the other is old and off line and I couldn't check. The external link to them at a game company is d4ead. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: There is coverage out there about her [1] not included in the current article, though her positions don't strike me as a strong case for notability. Software companies got much more of a pass in 2006.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Though there's not a lot of information about her in the article yet, there are definitely other sources.[2] The fact that she was chair of the IGDA is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. She was, and is, an important figure in the game industry. --Elonka 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited and IGDA is barely notable in itself. Given the failure to meet WP:GNG which get-out at WP:BIO do you rely on? I fail to see one myself. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (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, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CreepTD

CreepTD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "CreepTD" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Barely escapes CSD for advert. References offer no significant coverage, notability is not firmly established. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. A search brought up nothing that could be used as an independent and reliable source. There's nothing out there to show notability or to even back up the claims in the article. I didn't even really see that many forums talking about it either, which contradicts the article's claims of having a lot of popularity in the "tower game" niche.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• You are right, compared to other games in bigger niches CreepTD is not that well known. Tower defense is still a rather small sub-genre of strategy gaming commonly played solo (see Bloons, Flash Element TD etc.). However, this game is the broadest known and still played multiplayer tower defense game of these days and in my oppinion should be included besides of Bloons and others that clearly differenciate from this one in not being multiplayer nor providing an equally complete set of common game modes that also might be in interest for Wikipedia readers in general if they are interested in non-ancient implementations of these. These things may - or may not - make it a noteworthy candidate for people who like to take a deeper look into the tower defense genre itself. I'd of course extend the article with more detailed information if it does not get deleted. Didn't do this already because I have been unsure also if the game is a considerable candidate for other WP editors, too.Dcvm (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I just wish you had links to publications that are actually talking about the game itself, reviews, interviews, stuff like that. That is the only reason I brought it here, no independent coverage in any media. To me, the best outcome of an AFD is if someone digs up a slew of good links that we just couldn't find before, adds them, then I withdraw. I'm not "pro deletion", just "pro sourcing". If you can find some actual coverage, by all means, tell us. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment One of the problems with the links that you've provided is that none of the links are usable as reliable sources to show notability. They're mostly blogs or other things that cannot show notability. They do show that the game exists and that somewhere someone is talking about it, but it's not the type of coverage that is considered to be independent and reliable secondary sources. When you get down to it, only 1% of anything put out about a person, place, or thing will be usable to count towards notability. None of the links shown are usable per WP:RS. Even if the game was widely talked about and had millions of ghits, you still need independent secondary sources from trusted sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• I see. To make this sure for me: This also means that it is not enough (for a tower defense game e.g. "the" multiplayer tower defense game of today) to be mentioned at the most popular (specialized) tower defense portals around and also be mentioned in general press (however, this is not a "huge" press site but it is an independent one)? Doesn't it count that, if you try to find a more popular mp td still played, there is none? Doesn't it count that it has been used for a long time as a prime example in the german WP's "Tower Defense" article? As far as I am concerned, these are exactly the independent / relevant sources / criteria you request. Please let me know if I got something wrong on this.Dcvm (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• There has been a bunch of coverage in early days that I am aware of. Some recently. Maybe another point of interest: The game is better known in germany (thats why the coverage is mostly written in german) than in the US or similar because it used to be a project of german students and had been available in german solely for a while. Because of this it initialy spreaded in germany but is available in a variety of languages nowadays. Don't know if this is a valid point, but it has also been a prime example in the german Tower Defense article for a long time (previously named CreepSmash as noted).Dcvm (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is no real enclyclopedic content to be lost if it were to be deleted. The article looks like just a self-description of the game by whoever made it or is selling it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, more detailed content on the points that have already been prepared would be the first thing to add. However I don't like the idea of the article being deleted for another reason than its contents (that's what I'm trying to make clear for myself) after I invested that much time into it. That's usually the way the german WP works: Someone invests much time and things will be quick-deleted without further notice. For me the article contains just enough information about the game to figure out if it'd be relevant enough for WP or not at this point. Btw: Just because someone, who is somewhat deeper into the topic, created the article, it should not be deleted in general. This is not an advertisement and I am fully aware of WP not being an advertising plattform. I just like the game and in my oppinion it should be included for the reasons noted above.Dcvm (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Just added some more content, especially some that is quite unique for CreepTD and therefore defines the game's concept. Hope this helps to dissipate some doubts.Dcvm (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• No basis for deletion proposed. Article appears to be sourced and cited, and not a stub. No reason to delete --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (see)

• The basis for deletion is already given. That isn't how we do things. If you can point to the criteria that it passes, or explain how it passes WP:GNG, then please do. Being sourced isn't enough, they have to be reliable sources not just links to lists. This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:GNG, I'll give it a try (however, you are of course deeper into this topic): "Significant coverage" is not super-extensive but passed, the subject is addressed by the given sources and no original research is needed to extract the content (if I got the OR point right). "Reliable sources" are passed (german WP, independant press, more than well ratings on independent td portals). "Secondary sources" are passed by the variety of tower defense portals and the "reliable sources" mentioned. "Independent of the subject" is passed by the coverage I provided earlier (on the page itself and here9, however not all of the mentioned sources on this discussion page are noteworthy inside the article itself because there is better and more recent information available on non-independent sources like the original website (current game modes for example). In my oppinion it wouldn't make much sense to put something else than the current state there, even it is not documented independently (most software manuals aren't) but can be easily confirmed by every player without an exception. Anything "Presumed" is of course up to you.Dcvm (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

City Scanner (video game)

City Scanner (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "City Scanner (video game)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unless I am greatly mistaken, it is not notable enough. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• MERGE: Agreed. I am not too familiar with the Half-Life series so perhaps someone else can do the actual merging but perhaps a merge into the Characters of Half-Life or Creatures in the Half-Life series articles would be appropriate.--Ctoshw (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Combine (Half-Life), where the creatures in question are described in the "Combine Technology" section. There is really not enough information or notability to justify this having its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mayor Reynolds

Mayor Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mayor Reynolds" – news · books · scholar · free images)

not notable fictional character in a game. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• speedy delete no indication of notability. pokemon rule collary Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Article as is violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and has no reliable sources, as it's only sourced by wikias. Couldn't find any sources/coverage to re-write to help it establish notability. I say delete, but definitely don't salt it or anything; the game hasn't been out long, so I feel he could someday garner more coverage in "Top 5_____ characters in video games"-type articles or something. Especially since, a non-reliable source mentioned he was voiced by Burt Reynolds? Couldn't confirm for sure though... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Not finding third-party coverage in reliable sources about this video game character. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Naruto-Arena

Naruto-Arena (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Naruto-Arena" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Claims for the notability of this gaming website rest on the fact that it has 3 million users, which is doubtful, given its Alexa ratings. The article's author has been informed of the need to verify this fact with independent sources, and has failed to do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sure what else to say. Its a fansite and isn't even written in like an advertisement. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - unremarkable fan site, no legitimate indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Checking my CSE, I see occasional reviews of questionable legitimacy. If anyone wants to try to build a case, I'd start there. --Gwern (contribs) 15:49 9 February 2012 (GMT)

• Delete - Can't find significant (any?) third party coverage, notability not established. Unofficial, non-notable fan website/game. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Not every online game meets notability, and this one certainly seems to fall short.Tyrenon (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Special K Software

Special K Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Special K Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I don't see any notability. Prod was contested in 2010 without explanation [3], and the concern is still unaddressed. None of the "citations" (scare quotes because 3 of the 4 failed verification) mention Special K anywhere on the page. Kilopi (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see this page as valuable and useful to the public looking up the origin of this company. The company is real and the general public are aware of the company through its products distributed. A Bing search for "Special K Software" returns 1,320 hits, which has to be an indicator of public interest and relevance. By including this deletion in the game-related deletion discussion, there seems to be a misapprehension that this site is for a particular game, when it is actually for the company that produces games and other software for release.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsmagic (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Arguments like it's useful and search engine hits are supposed to be avoided. They don't establish notability, which is needed in order to keep the article. If you want to keep it, it'd be best to present sources where the company is covered, separate from the company itself. (ie don't give the company's website.)
  • Also, its pretty common for video game companies to be discussed in the video game section like this. I doubt there's a misconception there, and if there is, it'd be cleared up by our collective comments. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Try as I might, with a number of search variations, can't find any decent 3rd party refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6 (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 closed as nominator is not suggesting deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Real Madrid Fantasy Manager

Real Madrid Fantasy Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Real Madrid Fantasy Manager" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is one of a number of similar titles produced by From The Bench Digital Entertainment. Each title is identical other than the name of the football club e.g. Real Madrid, Liverpool, AC Milan etc. It would be better if this article were merged into From The Bench Digital Entertainment and then left as a redirect. That way the content could be relevant to all the titles not just this one. Biker Biker (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 6. Snotbot  t • c »  16:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest close per nom not being about deletion - AfD is likely not the appropriate venue for a suggested merge/redirect. Salvidrim! 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2012 (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 Nomination withdrawn per sources found. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unit 13

Unit 13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Unit 13" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested prod. Upcoming game, no assertion of any pre-release hype in the gaming community. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have added two external references to the article and included its appropriate stub-type as well. SaveATreeEatAVegan 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk)  Gongshow ^Talk 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 09:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Many were found in a matter of seconds. Please, read WP:BEFORE. Source List:
  • Game Informer, x2
  • IGN, x2
  • GameZone
  • Kotaku
• No offense, but I'm not sure what "Gaming Community" you're consulting, this game is getting plenty of coverage, especially considering it's not out yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 6 February 2012 (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.

February 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Wargame: European Escalation

Wargame: European Escalation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Wargame: European Escalation" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball no proof of notability shown. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Though the game doesn't seem to be released yet, there are already plenty of previews available that give significant coverage. http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/wargameeuropeanescalation/previews.html http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/ruse-developer-eugen-explains-upcoming-wargame-european-escalation/ http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/13/wargame-european-escalation-announced/ are the first promising results. I haven't looked further yet, but there is plenty around to make a largish stub or a small full article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2012 (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, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – Looks like the sources are substantive enough to establish notability. --MuZemike 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep- Coverage in reliable, third party sources.
  • IGN
  • GameSpy
  • Destructoid
  • GameSpot
• Notability established. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - While it doesn't look like the deletion is going to happen at this point, I feel I should say that as the person who made the article there was a reference substantiating notability right from the start, even assuming Google does not work for Darkness Shines. I am not sure what his motivation is here but it is difficult to interpret his actions as being in good faith. Praetonia (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's in fact partially my fault. When I rejected speedy deletion on the article, I suggested that AfD per WP:Crystal might be in order. I didn't look further (yet) to see if it would hold up to an AfD, so I can understand his reasoning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • True, but it's still questionable that he was vouching for Speedy Deletion, prior to that, completely of his own will and influence. (Which is even more of a stretch.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Per sources above. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a game I've been waiting for and I know that this game is gonna become huge! Source from IGN.com is good enough from above Jwjkim (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Best possible reason to trust the validity of the game, it is currently being offered on the Steam store with a release data of Fed 23, 2012 SilentVendetta (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The coverage makes it easily pass WP:GNG. I added a bit of additional referenced material to the article. Dream Focus 12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

February 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. Snow consensus for delete. Topic currently lacks coverage to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Devils hill

Devils hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Devils hill" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Disputed prod - see article talk page. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. I cannot find any references to this project apart from its website. Jll (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Unremarkable project. No references, no significant performers/artists involved. Pure speculation. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable future film. If it receives the widespread attention required to ascertain notability, then a new article can be created, but at the moment it doesn't meet the threshold for films. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable mention of the topic outside of WP. I note too that the article creator and one other user have not edited anything beyond these two articles. ClaretAsh 00:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per the above; I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - No third party coverage, kind of looks like a hastily slapped together ad to direct people to their website... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like an advert. The only detail given, really, is the location while everything else is abstract. What sort of movie? How does the game relate? What sort of game is it? SilentVendetta (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2012 (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.

February 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Zindagi Games

Zindagi Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Zindagi Games" – news · books · scholar · free images)

nominated for a7. declined on the grounds that "some of their games have notability". notability is not inherited. fails WP:CORP Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found no notability. The games are notable, but this company isn't. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The only credible information I could find were two mentions of the same event, where the company matched charitable donations, and verify the location of the company. Not enough to keep an entire article, I don't think. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The custom Google search for reliable sources approved by the Wikiproject for video games, shows 7,650 results. [4]. That is a lot to wade through but I found this one: [5] But Zindagi's talent clearly doesn't stop at the ability to craft phenomenal motion control mechanics. Many of the nuances of Sports Champions were lost on its casual audience. And then they also say, among other things, We can be pretty certain Zindagi's working on something for the PlayStation Move. The company describes itself as a "PlayStation Move developer" on its website, and apparently played an integral part in the development of the controller. We also know the company was recently hiring for a PlayStation 3 project. Whatever they're cooking, we have the utmost faith in Zindagi concocting a title that justifies the PlayStation Move for a second time, and hopefully we see it at E3 this year. Seems like enough mention of them in that article to count as notable. Dream Focus 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I found an interview that Product Manager Colin O'Hara did on G4TV. But the video won't load up for me. Anyone able to see this? Does he talk about his company or how they do things, or just about their products? [6] Dream Focus 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I also was unable to get the video to load, looks like it might be a dead link. wouldve been a good find for keep though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's the direct link to the FLV: [7] (archiveurl). If you still can't view it from that link, convert the video to another format (e.g., MP4) and it should work. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (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 keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cobalt (video game)

Cobalt (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Cobalt (video game)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable upcoming video game. Mythpage88 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I'm sure this game is notable, it's also the second result in Google for "Cobalt". l'll find some sources for it, and it's not exactly "upcoming" if it's in playable alpha. Wagner ^u t c 07:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  WP:GOOGLEHITS. Mythpage88 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This game actually gained a LOT of interest from articles posted by Mojang (The guys who made Minecraft), and by many Youtubers and Bloggers. Just search "Cobalt" on Youtube. ----* Alan.comek - [ Talk • Contribs ] 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Those aren't reliable sources in the slightest. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  What do you mean not reliable? Thousands of people read and watch that stuff every day. Yes, there are more reliable sources out there, but who says that this isn't? ----* Alan.comek - [ Talk • Contribs ] 04:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Our guidelines do -- WP:RS. See the links below as to what reliable VG sources (WP:VG/RS) are. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  HellKnowz is correct. See my post below for a list of articles for on the game that are considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Coverage in reliable, third party sources, to establish notability. Source list:
  • GameSpy
  • GameSpot, x2
  • GameZone
  • IGN Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Sergecross. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and add the sources listed above to the article. Multiple independent RS'es meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The game was released, although it is in the Alpha stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkill51 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It will be mentioned at upcoming 2012 PAX. Wilsonlu (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTALBALL Mythpage88 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several "Keep" !votes here that are for the wrong reasons, like that one, or the one about Google hits, but ultimately what matters here is that it is getting plenty of coverage in third party sources, as I listed above, and should be kept for that reason. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It gets coverage. Remember to use the custom Google search for video games sources. [8] Makes it easy to find things. Dream Focus 12:51, 9 February 2012 (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.

January 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yasi (video game)

Yasi (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Yasi (video game)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No surprise that I nosi references for a game "developed by independent enthusiasts" for a defunct console. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete.I have to agree with Clarity here. Can't find the particular game in any notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.68.243 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like an unofficial, homebrew game that came out 10 years ago for an obscure, unsuccessful system that went out of production almost 20 years before that. No claims to notability, and I don't see it developing for the reasons I stated above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 1 February 2012 (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.

January 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Let's Meow Meow!

Let's Meow Meow! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Let's Meow Meow!" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no notability for this adult video game. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak Delete - Delete because the article doesn't have any coverage in third party, reliable sources. It doesn't establish notability. Weak because I read the article, and I'm not willing to do much searching for sources for this game, for fear of what dark reaches of the internet that search would lead me to... Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Mostly per above; I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, but with something like this it would be nice if the author(s) of the article would save us the displeasure of having to look up thing that might be a bit more...er..."interesting" than we particularly care to view when verifying an article.Tyrenon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Did some moderately thorough searching for information, could only find user provided data on sites where almost anyone can put something up. No credible profiles or reviews by major gaming sites. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (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 keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Vectrex games

List of Vectrex games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Vectrex games" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No sourcing, no content. Completely unreferenced for over two years. The majority of the entries here are either unlinked or redlinked and there is practically no additional content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The article currently has one reference as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, the nom notes only cleanup issues. Obviously which games were released on the Vectrex platform is verifiable, and standard practice for notable game platforms is to make the list comprehensive (see, e.g., List of Atari 2600 games), so it will include many that merit articles and many that don't. Even if you're of the opinion that such a list should only include notable entries, the solution to that is to remove the non-notable ones, not to delete the whole list. The Atari list I linked to also indicates how any such game list can be annotated: with columns for the game's designer, genre, year of release, and additional notes. So the complaint that there is "no content" (to the extent that is even relevant for a list) is in error because it at best only describes the list's current state, rather than it's potential. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to expand the list, then please do so. However as it is now, there's nothing there, and nothing to preserve. List of Playstation 4 games will be an excellent article too, once someone has written it. In the meantime though, we have to deal with things how they are now, not how we'd like them to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We deal with how things are now by fixing them when the problems are fixable. WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOEFFORT, etc., etc. Regardless, the reference currently in the list can source far more than the one item it's been cited for; it has a whole chapter on Vectrex.[9] Did you even look anywhere before nominating this? postdlf (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per improvements to the article, improved sourcing, by user:Postdlf. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I understand the nominator's feelings, as this list was looking pretty rough as of nomination, and honestly, I believe the whole "homebrew" section should probably be deleted outright, as none of that are official games, but the sources are there, and if we're okay with all of the List of Nintendo 3DS games-type articles (and we are, there's a "list of"- type article for most systems out there, and I've been in AFD's for them before, and they end up being a "Keep"), then this should be kept as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There was actually an appendix in the Weiss book cited in the list about homebrew games, which listed some made for the Vectrex and said there are plenty of online sources about them. So I wouldn't delete that section wholesale, I think it merits some more research. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Postdlf for adding the source. The original era games of 30 years ago were never really the problem though - Minestorm and Tank Battle were very well known in their time. The trouble still, and this is still unsourced, is that most of this article is a list of games from long after the Vectrex was a museum- and eBay-piece. Do any of these games exist, and exist for the Vectrex? Were there really so many coders working to write or port games for what was by 2000 a no-longer interesting vector display, once there was enough raw processor available to do it all with shaded 3D, let alone bitmaps? If this article is kept (as now seems likely) it should still be reduced to about a third of its current size. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – Valid list of games for a major video game console. Just because something is unsourced doesn't mean it's "unsourceable", as the improvements have demonstrated. --MuZemike 00:31, 6 February 2012 (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony Online

My Little Pony Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "My Little Pony Online" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Upcoming potentially notable unofficial mmorpg. Not notable yet. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a crystal ball exercise. I really do not want to contemplate a MMORPG consisting of tens of thousands of those MLP whackers... Carrite (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as unlikely crystal ballery. 3D community-made MMORPGs are rare as hen's teeth anyway for obvious reasons, and an MMORPG made from someone else's unlicensed intellectual property? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. This has the potential to become notable, but at this point it hasn't been released yet and as such, doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. There's a bit of coverage, but not enough and not in-depth enough to be the amount needed to warrant an article at this time. This would absolutely be worth mentioning on the main MLP:FIM article under the fandom. I'd also like to add that the fandom has started to reach the point that it might be worth creating a branch off article about it, if someone more savvy than I would like to do so. (I'm just a casual fan and probably wouldn't be the best editor for this. I know that MLP AfDs are usually often read, so I'm mentioning it here in case anyone is interested.) This article also might be worth userfying if someone is interested in doing so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:N and the sub-par citations do not help. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete It's currently not notable, and honestly I doubt it ever will be. Wagner ^u t c 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete as WP:CRYSTAL mostly. While the few sources could contribute to GNG, their coverage is minimal at best and was only prompted by the brony community. There's no critical reception and without it real-world significance cannot be established proper. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:13, 5 February 2012 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Malinche Entertainment

Malinche Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Malinche Entertainment" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article absolutely does not conform to the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no rational way to claim that this business is in any way notable. Furthermore, none of the claims made by Howard Sherman (the business owner) in the article are verifiable - not even the date of the founding of the business! Laval (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Two citations in Wired, one from a local newspaper. All three are directly covering the business and the business's products. That looks like multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, each of which provides significant coverage. As best I can tell, that meets the general notability guideline. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Uncovered another useful citation in the form of published PhD Thesis. Added it to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, weakly, largely per Alan De Smet. While some of the references are to blogs and other less formal sources, they are from people who have made names for themselves as game developers. No one will mistake this article for a PR piece. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 1 February 2012 (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.

January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

List of The Legend of Dragoon characters

List of The Legend of Dragoon characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of The Legend of Dragoon characters" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Completely unsourced list of character detail that as far as I can tell has not been covered by reliable sources, and is simply unencyclopedic. This was previously redirected to the game but that was reverted. Michig (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No signs of notability or third party coverage. This is merely a collection of observed plot points from the game and original research. Certainly a notable, noteworthy game, but the characters themselves have no notability outside of the actual game. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above, so much in-universe information on characters who are not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 1 February 2012 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Armored Fist 3

Armored Fist 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Armored Fist 3" – news · books · scholar · free images)

To kick off the discussion: While I'm sure enough material could be found to expand this article beyond the current single sentence, it's unlikely it will ever satisfy WP:GNG. The odd review or 2 in industry-focused publications does NOT constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 108.67.153.215 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:108.67.153.215, who cannot start this page due to being an IP. I have no opinion either way. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Besides the ubiquitous download sites, the best I could find was a couple more reviews [10] [11]. Those reviews appear much more high profile than a lot of software that survives AfD. If the CNN review is really CNN, then I would have expected there should be more reviews? Is it possible there are some from sources unavailable online? In the absence of more coverage however, I’m minded to think that we don’t have enough to grant notability.Pit-yacker (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Create Armored Fist series article/Redirect to NovaLogic#Armored_Fist, enough sourcing exists for something about the game or the series on WP. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to the Novalogic article seems reasonable. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It has received coverage in a variety of reliable, third party sources.
  • Gamespot
  • IGN
  • CNN
  • GameSpy
  • Allgame, x2

It didn't take very long to find these, so I can't help but think there's plenty more out there too... Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As explained in the nomination, reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage. Could you explain why you think this case is different? Preferably with specific reference to Wikipedia policy? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I'd like you to point me in the direction of this "reviews don't really count" guideline. I've never found that to be true at AFD. Here's what matters: They are independent, third party, reliable sources. They are dedicated to the topic at hand, it's not just a passing mention. That's enough to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that you don't understand WP:GNG. You'll note I said nothing about reviews being reliable or independent sources, so you're clearly trying to obfuscate the issue. No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold. Personally I'd like to see the quality of games-related articles improved, and deleting non-notable articles is an important step in that. But, whatever, keep games in the ghetto if you care so little. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold." Really? Because it looks like a number of experienced editors have !voted "keep", and with good rationale, so that statement seems rather ridiculous. Judging by the way you spoke entirely in generalities, and then vaguely referenced the GNG, I'm thinking there really isn't anything here left to argue here. It's great you want to improve wikipedia, but remember, we're using Wikipedia's standards, not your personal ones... Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Per reviews. "reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage." That's nonsense. IP, according to what? SL93 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe try reading them sometime? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No guideline says anything about reviews. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now completely rewritten the article, using the 5 reliable sources used above. Started a reception section as well. The sources contain a lot more information about the gameplay itself, but I'll leave that for someone else to write. (I have no interest or prior knowledge in this game, or Tanks in general, so I think I've pretty much exhausted my motivation for this article at this point.) Anyways, clearly passes the WP:GNG now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep- Per Sergecross73's excellent source hunting and rewrite. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Sergecross73's good work. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; subject meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:36, 1 February 2012 (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.

January 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 delete. Though sources have been added, none of those are independent. Even if they were from partners, they're still not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Game-Debate

Game-Debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Game-Debate" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No indication of notability, does not seem to meet WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I see no notability, no references, no information, beyond "in the top 20k of Alexa". If that was notable, this would be Adverpedia, not Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any indication of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't Delete. We are still adding information. We added new information today. Your words are harsh my friends. Pip 14:05, 01 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment New sources are all directly from Game-Debate, hence useless for WP:GNG which requires independent sources to demonstrate notability. Not harsh, just policy-based. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I have been trying to contact some of our partners but it's hard for them to create a page just to give us credibility so in the end some references have to come from the own website. What I was trying to say is that we are still building the page. It takes time. Oh and I have been looking at some pages (won't mention the names) without any external references and they don't seem to have this problem. Instead of just saying 'DELETE, DELETE, DELETE' it would be nice to get some help and advice. Pip 14:05, 02 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - No independent sources are provided, so there is no evidence of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 5 February 2012 (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 keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)

Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO   A&E⇑ 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but 26 splits are too much. 2 splits no. If you want I can make 4/3 splits. Alancito10t (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). Although I have a problem: with an administrator permission, I want to delete:

Index of MS-DOS games (A) Index of MS-DOS games (B) Index of MS-DOS games (C) Index of MS-DOS games (D) Index of MS-DOS games (E) Index of MS-DOS games (F) Index of MS-DOS games (G) Index of MS-DOS games (H) Index of MS-DOS games (I) Index of MS-DOS games (J) Index of MS-DOS games (K) Index of MS-DOS games (L) Index of MS-DOS games (M) Index of MS-DOS games (N) Index of MS-DOS games (O) Index of MS-DOS games (P) Index of MS-DOS games (Q) Index of MS-DOS games (R) Index of MS-DOS games (S) Index of MS-DOS games (T) Index of MS-DOS games (U) Index of MS-DOS games (V) Index of MS-DOS games (W) Index of MS-DOS games (X) Index of MS-DOS games (Y) Index of MS-DOS games (Z) Index of MS-DOS games (0–9)

If you like my changes (Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)/Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)/Index of MS-DOS games ) we can delete this pages, because it wont be necessary. Please answer! Thanks to all Alancito10t (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural Close - This should not be discussed in an AfD. Salvidrim! 20:09, 1 February 2012 (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 keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)

Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO   A&E⇑ 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but 26 pages are too much. 2 pages no. If you want I can make 4/3. Alancito10t 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.173.150 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm sorry, on what grounds do you want this deleted? Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). User:Alancito10t 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.211.160 (talk)
• Procedural Close - This should not be discussed in an AfD. Salvidrim! 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep no actual reasons to delete.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (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.

January 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Lula games

Lula games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lula games" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Lacks multiple substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: As far as I can see, basically all the games of this series have received some coverage in specialized sites and all they have significant Google News entries (mainly reviews) in multiple language, as 3d News, Techline, Проекты CNews, Gamesurf, Total Video Games. A search in Googe Books reveals they're even covered in notable "mainstream" newspapers and magazines as Le Monde, Panorama and L'espresso... They meet GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I clicked on the above google books search, and can't see what you are seeing in your gbooks search -- you linked not to the articles you indicate you found, but to the publications. Could you link to the substantial coverage in those papers? Thanks. Also, as to the gnews entries you point to, can you identify which you feel are RSs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I linked the Panorama ref in the main article. Le Monde and L'espresso (1999 collections) do not have preview so I can't judge in which contest they mentioned the games. Quite all the above entries appear, at first glance, reliable (no self-published, no blogs, no wiki sites). CNews.ru is, according Russian WP, the web version of a monthly magazine dedicated to telecommunications, technology, software and computer games. Techline appears the same (a web-magazine about technology and Internet). 3DNews, according Russian WP, is a 15 years old online magazine about communication technologies. Total Video Games appears to be a News/Rewiews/Previews site about videogames. Gamesurf is part of Tiscali web portals. Google News archive include several more sites of questionable reliability, as T-Online or Jeux Video. Furthermore, there are several news entries about Lula in GameZone such as this, this or this. I've also found a review of a Lula game by Aleks Krotoski for The Guardian, here. I also added in the main article a ref to a review by PC Gamer.

I even found a mention of Lula in the German cultural magazine "Ästhetik & Kommunikation", 112-115. There's only a snippet preview, so it's not clear if there's only a trivial mention or something more substantial, but the text visible in the snippet ("Gegen die Konkurrenz von Busenstar Lula aus dem Spiel Wet-The Sexy Empire oder Nikki Pandämonium (Pandämonium 2) und anderen digitalen Sexbomben hat Lara Croft sich durchgesetzt, weil ihre Designer sie nicht allein mit Kurven...", trad. "The competition between Tittie Star Lula of the game "Wet Attack: The Empire Cums Back" and Pandemonium Nikki ("Pandemonium 2") and the other digital bombshells Lara Croft has become established, since their designers do not only with curves...") seems to confirm the notability of Lula games.

I even found a review of a Lula game in MyTech.it, a news entry in Computer and Video Games, a trivial mention in a Corriere della Sera article, a La Repubblica's review . - Cavarrone (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:05, 3 February 2012 (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 merge to Ultima Online for now. There is full consensus that the subject does not have separate notability, but the content of the article are encyclopedic and verifiable, and therefore should be kept. This boils down the debate to the relative merits between keeping the spin-off and merging, and later comments after the article's been trimmed seem to gravitate towards favouring a merge.

This AfD should not preclude Worlds of Ultima Online from becoming a separate article again, should the amount of relevant verifiable encyclopedic content increase to a level at which a spin-off becomes feasible. Deryck C. 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Worlds of Ultima Online

Worlds of Ultima Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Worlds of Ultima Online" – news · books · scholar · free images)

There are no reliable third-party sources available to WP:verify notability of this game's setting, as distinct from the notability of the Ultima Online game as a whole.

To be more specific... there was a discussion on the talk page where an editor indicated that appropriate sources existed. But none were given, and their appropriateness was refuted. Any third party sources about the game either fail to mention the individual worlds, or barely mention them in a single line (usually with a plot recap). As for sources that talk about the "worlds" (not one world in particular), they use "virtual world" interchangeably with "online game". They talk about the game's mechanics and the game's popularity, occasionally substituting "world" for "game". Nothing that talks specifically about the setting.

Basically, improving this article WP:WONTWORK because there's no sources that can turn this from a level-by-level directory into something that explains this setting's reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Ultima Online per WP:ATD and WP:NNC. Deletion is unnecessary, as discussions of major plot elements can easily be fit into a topic's main article with appropriate trimming. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you link to WP:NNC? Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. As I mentioned on the talk page, every update has a new world which is given ample coverage in reliable sources for game news. Dream Focus 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Ample coverage about these various worlds, listing what they have in details, and reviewers commenting on them plenty. Article already had references to prove this. I added some more. Dream Focus 10:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply: remarkably scant "coverage" in the sources you found. Zero information about reception or significance. Your sources barely mention the worlds by name in a sentence or two. The only information you actually added to the article was about the number of creatures, which is completely off topic. The general notability guideline calls for significant coverage, which is "more than a trivial mention". Shooterwalker (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you talk about a world without mentioning something about it? Mention the building room, the new monsters and creatures, the unique scenery, the new dungeons, etc. A review about a book, game, movie, or anything can only mention its name once, and then talk in detail about it without saying its name repeatedly. It coverage is given to the aspects of something, then obviously that is coverage for it. Dream Focus 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Verifying something exists might be enough to include it in the encyclopedia somewhere. And the main Ultima Online article DOES mention nearly everything already here. But having a source that offers significant coverage (more than a trivial mention, and with information on reception and significance) is what's needed for notability, and a stand-alone article. Otherwise it's just a WP:CONTENTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Spinoff content forks are listed under "Acceptable types of forking". Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
          • But WP:AVOIDSPLIT says that these forks need to be notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
            • If its notable enough to be in the main article, its notable enough to be split and expanded into a side article. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Ultima Online, which is notable. The content is largely good, just it belongs in the main article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Would it all fit in the main article though? Be rather long. Dream Focus 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per the WP:Pokemon test. (Just joking). Seriously, keep per WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a clear spinoff and the Merge votes make it clear that it would work as a section of Ultima Online, but it is already quite long. This should have never been called for deletion given that the sources are clearly verifiable, the WP:WONTWORK given at nomination is for "unsourced and contentious material", "original research", "undue weight" or "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism". This is a waste of time. Diego (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as a perfectly acceptable WP:CONTENTFORK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator: I would support a merge if it would result in a consensus. I still maintain that deletion is appropriate because there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. We can only find trivial mentions of the worlds in third-party sources, nothing talking about their reception. But I'm not a zealot about this stuff and I'm always willing to compromise. The article is stubbish (4-7k) and could easily be merged with the information on the worlds/expansions at Ultima_online#Expansions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Look at the article. All of that can not be fit over there. Having a large chunk in the main article for this makes no sense, it best to put it to a side article as is proper. Just as the characters are in a separate article than the main series. List of Ultima characters. Same thing is regularly done all over Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• It easily fits. Even if all we did is take out the headings and copy and paste the whole thing to the main article, the main article would still not be large enough to even consider splitting. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• No. It most certainly would not. Look at it carefully now. Would all of that fit over there? You'd end up erasing a large chunk of it for sure. Does anyone else believe you can shove that much text into the main article? Also does anyone believe it should go there instead of just a more convenient side article instead? Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• 5kb is nothing. We merge stubs like this all the time, especially when they're lacking in sources to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The coverage is significant, especially for the items on a list article of this type. Dream Focus 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not using the definition of significant from the general notability guideline, which requires more than a trivial mention. Check the footnotes. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that other notable things have a list article for their worlds, such as List of Firefly planets and moons from the series Firefly. Star Trek has a series of articles for listing all of its planets, List of Star Trek planets. List of Doctor Who planets, List of Transformers planets, etc. etc. This is a valid list article, of a type commonly found on Wikipedia. It should of course be renamed to Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lot of "trimming" being done to the article now. I really believe people could understand the aspects of this notable game better with more content not less. Felt the same way for the last Ultima article you did this to of course. Britannia (Ultima) was merged [12] to a much shorter version. [13] I suppose all the details about the various worlds could be moved into articles about the specific expansion packs. [14] I still believe the article is notable enough to be kept on its own, but if the opinions of the closing administration is to eliminate the article, then the information should be moved to the appropriate articles for the various expansion packs. Dream Focus 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't removed anything other than wordiness and original research. Nothing that would affect understanding. If there's a verifiable fact that belongs there, add it back in. Even better would be something with significant coverage to establish notability. (WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The footnote adds that a "one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial".) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Ultima Online, where it would fit in well. No independent notability apparent.  Sandstein  07:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Ultima Online; not notable apart from the game, and that article, while longish, could benefit from this information. Not big enough for a spinout at this point. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:53, 5 February 2012 (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.

January 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Equintium

Equintium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Equintium" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This game lacks substantial RS coverage. Article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As per nominator. There has been no edits to it since 2008. That would be long enough for any RS to have been found. There simply is none.--MLKLewis (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as per nominator's assessment of lack of references and notability. The only sites that mention this game seem to be a hodgepodge of blogs and forums as well as the game's site, all of which are unreliable sources. -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This article has no sources and lacking information about the game. Unlike other game articles this has no pictures and structured weird. Jwjkim (talk) 05:19, 8, February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete All sites which have any description are the main site, and sites that let companies advertise their games. The quality of these sites are not good, either. Everything else is forum discussions or fan groups. Can find no credible sources. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (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.

January 24 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Chisholm

Daniel Chisholm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Daniel Chisholm" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. The article reads like a linkedin profile rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Article makes no assertion as to why this individual might be notable in his own right, only that he has been associated with notable companies and individuals. "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." Rubiscous (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2012 (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.

January 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 keep. Most comments below agree that there are Korean-language sources supporting the notability of this game; to avoid a 3rd AfD, please go and cite those in the article soon. Deryck C. 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Special Force (online game)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Special Force Online

Articles for deletion/Special Force (online game) (2nd nomination)

Special Force (online game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Special Force (online game)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) a press release about the publisher, (2) a tournament put on by the publisher, (3) a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game, (4) an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing, (5) an amateur review on a directory site, and (6) another amateur review on a directory site. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nominator's assessment of the sources. Doesn't seem to have gained much if any notability since the last AFD deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable game in Korea means reliable sources are in Korean. Search for the Korean name on Google News, and you'll get loads of hits.[15] Most of the recent ones are about the sequel, but you can search through the archives and find plenty of stuff like this from The Chosun Ilbo which suggests that it is domestically popular.[16][17] - hahnchen 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Then do that. When a game is so important that its distribution rights are discussed in the financial press, it has to be fairly notable. When the source states that Special Force has generated 3.5billion ₩ (~US$3M) in 2008(?), it's notable. Maybe that's another sentence you can add on to your proposed stub, it's better than your suggestion of deleting and then salting this. - hahnchen 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The game seems to be virtually unknown outside of South Korea, but there it is popular enough to warrant an article, IMHO. There's people playing this game for a living, that ought to count for something, right? :) Someone who speaks Korean would be of great help finding sources here. I'm absolutely positive that there are more than enough. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm from Korea and I know the game personally and it should be notable. Although I can't go looking for the sources, I know there should be reliable sources out there to back this page with. Kagemasta (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of people in this discussion talking about how there must be reliable Korean sources on this game, yet none have been found. Being from Korea, you're probably better equipped than most of us to find sources that will help keep this article. When you have the time is it possible for you to find something that will help support the claims of many in here? -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I just searched "스페셜포스" on Google and saw a TON of articles on that game. Apparently this game is played in pro-leagues and as we know Korea is known to be one of the countries that takes gaming seriously. This article should be kept but maybe more in detail on bottom of current results of professional gaming scene. Jwjkim (talk) 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment it would be very helpful if someone who speaks Korean does the above google search, evaluates the sources, and creates proper references from it. Right now we have the situation where we are asking for, say, two specific examples of independent reliable sources, and responses are 'when I google it I can find tons of them!'. Though I appreciate the preliminary work, it would be nice if someone could help the non-koreans out. I for one am not equipped to properly asses the google results into what is an independent reliable source, and what's not, so I can't do it myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (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.

Closed

• 
  
  • Jak and Daxter Collection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jak and Daxter Collection (23 January 2012 – 30 January 2012) Redirect to Jak and Daxter
  • Halo: Faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo: Faith (22 January 2012 – 29 January 2012) Delete
  • Penalty of Heroes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penalty of Heroes (22 January 2012 – 29 January 2012) Delete
  • Terrordrome (Game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrordrome (Game) (20 January 2012 – 27 January 2012) Delete
  • Xbox 720 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 720 (2nd nomination) (19 January 2012 – 27 January 2012) Delete
  • Fruit Loko at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruit Loko (17 January 2012 – 24 January 2012) Delete
  • Froggy Jump at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Froggy Jump (17 January 2012 – 24 January 2012) Delete
  • Card Control at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card Control (17 January 2012 – 24 January 2012) Delete
  • Tough Games Inc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough Games Inc. (16 January 2012 – 23 January 2012) Delete
  • Homebrew Channel at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homebrew Channel (2nd nomination) (15 January 2012 – 22 January 2012) Keep
  • Risk Devolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk Devolution (15 January 2012 – 22 January 2012) Delete
  • Manomio at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manomio (12 January 2012 – 1 February 2012) Keep
  • Cyber Chess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Chess (8 January 2012 – 25 January 2012) No Consensus
  • NavyField at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NavyField (7 January 2012 – 22 January 2012) Delete
  • Tetris Online Japan at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetris Online Japan (4 January 2012 – 29 January 2012) Redirect to List of Tetris variants
  • Voldi Way at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voldi Way (2 January 2012 – 21 January 2012) Redirect to WayForward Technologies
  • Global Warfare (Kabam) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Warfare (Kabam) (1 January 2012 – 20 January 2012) No Consensus
  • Mud and Blood 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud and Blood 2 (22 December 2011 – 25 January 2012) Delete
  • Pyrce High at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrce High (12 January 2012 – 13 January 2012) Speedy Delete
  • Croc 3 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croc 3 (2nd nomination) 2012-01-12
  • MonsterMMORPG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonsterMMORPG (10 January 2012 – 16 January 2012) Delete
  • Arena (chess) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena (chess) (8 January 2012 – 16 January 2012) Delete
  • Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded (8 January 2012 – 15 January 2012) Keep
  • Haunt (video game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunt (video game) (7 January 2012 – 14 January 2012) Keep
  • Never shout Nevermind at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never shout Nevermind (6 January 2012 – 7 January 2012) Speedy Delete
  • PoppaZoppa at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PoppaZoppa (5 January 2012 – 13 January 2012) Delete
  • Dokapon MillenniumQuest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dokapon MillenniumQuest (5 January 2012 – 14 January 2012) Keep
  • Dark Signs (video game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Signs (video game) (5 January 2012 – 12 January 2012) Delete
  • Minicraft at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minicraft (4 January 2012 – 11 January 2012) Keep
  • UDigits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDigits (2 January 2012 – 14 January 2012) Delete
  • 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die (2 January 2012 – 9 January 2012) Keep
  • A Public Nuisance Train Man -Target of Legend- at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Public Nuisance Train Man -Target of Legend- (31 December 2011 – 9 January 2012) Delete
  • 1945k III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1945k III (30 December 2011 – 13 January 2012) Delete
  • SharpChess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharpChess (29 December 2011 – 6 January 2012) Delete
  • Pachinko Sexy Reaction 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pachinko Sexy Reaction 2 (28 December 2011 – 5 January 2012) Delete
  • Pachinko Sexy Reaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pachinko Sexy Reaction (28 December 2011 – 5 January 2012) Delete
  • Outback Redemption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outback Redemption (28 December 2011 – 5 January 2012) Delete
  • Legend of Zelda Timeline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Zelda Timeline (27 December 2011 – 5 January 2012) Delete
  • Call of Duty: Iron Wolf at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty: Iron Wolf (2nd nomination) 2012-01-05
  • Brick Engine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick Engine (27 December 2011 – 4 January 2012) Delete
  • Cartoon Wars (app) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars (app) (26 December 2011 – 11 January 2012) No Consensus
  • Push!! at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push!! (22 December 2011 – 8 January 2012) Delete
  • Digimon world:re:digitize at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digimon world:re:digitize (21 December 2011 – 8 January 2012) Keep
  • Wonder Cruise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Cruise (19 December 2011 – 3 January 2012) Delete
  • Non-game at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-game (18 December 2011 – 6 January 2012) Keep
  • Index of game-related articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of game-related articles (16 December 2011 – 4 January 2012) Keep
  • List of WWE '12 characters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE '12 characters (2nd nomination) (2 January 2012) Speedy delete
  • Arrow to the knee at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow to the knee (1 January 2012) Speedy delete