Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

viewtalkeditchanges

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

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

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

Contents

May 22 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Chaotic Rage[edit]

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Only independent ref is an incidental mention. A search shows game play sites, but did not turn up any further independent coverage. Dialectric (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any reviews of this software in sources that would meet WP:VG/RS's standards. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Aeropause Games[edit]

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

This website has no significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Not the subject of any dedicated work that I could find. Only the subject of a series of passing mentions about its reporting, though hasn't won an award or been covered in any substantial manner. Third party refs in the article are not about Aeropause itself. Fails the general notability guideline and WP:WEBCRIT. – czar 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unfortunately as the need for better sources has not been addressed nor have they received any attention at all. My searches only found passing mentions here. SwisterTwister talk 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Video Game Museum[edit]

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

This website has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The most attention this website receives from video game journalists is a thanks in their photo captions. After filtering out "screenshot courtesy of" in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, we're left with nothing. Fails the general notability guideline and subject-specific (WEB/ORG) notability guidelines. – czar 02:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Women and violence in video games[edit]

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

Unsourced essay/WP:OR. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow, Arcanum? That's a pretty obscure choice for an academic study. Anyway, this looks like original research in its purest form – surveys and analysis performed by the article's author. Though it lacks inline citations, it does make reference to published research. The problem is that it's difficult to tell where the published research ends and the original research begins. I think this is kind of an interesting topic, but, sadly, Wikipedia is not a collection of things that NinjaRobotPirate finds interesting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to strike my vote after the rewrite and subsequent expansion. It looks a lot more like a encyclopedia article now. Any further problems can be addressed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I said I would try to clean up this article but I really didn't know where to start. Do you even bother tagging things with {{cn}} if the entire article is unreferenced? Anyways, article does suffer from WP:OR problems, looking at sentences and phrases such as "This is a clear representation on how..." and "...women play games that are clearly targeted at a male gaming audience...", etc. However, this is not a reason for deletion unless the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, per WP:DEL-REASON. The article makes reference to research but never cites it, and the entire article reads a lot like an essay to me. Pishcal 04:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and Improve - I have removed the OR, added full citations, and fixed some of the tone issues just now. The topic is notable and there is tons of academic research that can be added to demonstrate notability & improve the article. I'll continue working on it over the next few days, it should become apparent that this is a definite "keep" quite quickly. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I would going to add some citations, but I gave up after the third edit conflict. Maybe you could try making fewer rapid edits in a row? Anyway, the article looks better, but it's still problematic. I'll look at it again later. I've given up hope of making an edit on it today. And now I got an edit conflict trying to write this, too. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry about the edit conflicts! You're right that it's still problematic. I'm sure it can be cleaned up with enough effort though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - This is someone's research paper. The author makes it clear at User:HaydenLCase/sandbox. I don't see evidence that "women and violence in video games" is a distinctive topic from "violence in video games", the studies cited cover both genders, so why would we cover it separately? Sadly, our video game violence article is buried in the unreadable dreck that is video game controversies, but anything useful could also be merged into women and video games. - hahnchen 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

AngleGators[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaming Target[edit]

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

This website lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only third party links are passing mentions of the website, and there is no sustained, independent coverage with which to write an article. Coverage from other vg sites (from a video game reliable sources custom Google search) also amounted to passing mentions. The article topic does not pass the general notability guideline or any subject-specific guideline. – czar 16:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I've managed to find trivial mentions with this search, but significant coverage does not seem to exist. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

The Video Game Critic[edit]

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

Current article is refbombed with passing mentions and self-published sources. Underneath it, the topic not the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The current article's third party refs are a collection of passing mentions and are not about the site/Mrozek at all. (Also our WPVG project itself does not consider the site a reliable source.) I searched multiple databases—including a ProQuest firehose of 50+ databases—for more sources and did not find more than press release-y or passing mentions of the site and Mrozek. – czar 12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The nomination appears to be right on - the sources all seem to be first party, unreliable (Mobygames), or extremely brief passing mentions that aren't really about the subject. If someone can dig up some better sources, I'd reconsider...but I'm not seeing it. (It doesn't help that the generic nature of the name shows up with a ton of false-positives in source searching though.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep- VGC is very much a reliable source. With his vast collection of reviews, including for rare systems like the Arcadia 2001, and he's considered one of the best sources for Atari 2600 reviews, as well as for his comprehensive console reviews. And besides, since when are the Seattle Times and the San Francisco Chronicle not reliable sources?Logan The Master
  • You are arguing the wrong points. We are not discussing whether or not he's reliable, we're discussing whether or not he's notable. Very different things. If you want to discus whether or not he's a reliable source, you'd discuss that at WP:VG/S's talk page. (He's currently not listed at all there, so its undetermined there.) As for the rest of what you said, yes, the Seattle Times and SF Chronicle would be reliable sources, but they don't offer significant coverage. The SF Chronicle only mentions them very briefly - merely 2 sentences in an article largely about something else, and the Seattle one, I can't really tell, as its showing up as a dead link to him. Let me know if someone can provide a working link to it, but my guess is that with the article title "Computer tools, toys round out wish list", I'm guessing it wasn't an article centered around covering the website in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Minor point: "Video Game Critic, The" actually is listed at WP:VG/RS, though we are indeed discussing notability and not reliability. Also I couldn't find a backup of "Computer tools, toys round out wish list" on Internet Archive, ProQuest, or LexisNexis, so I'm removing the ref. – czar 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I must have done my search with "the" at the beginning of "The Video Game Critic", which didn't come up with any hits since its listed as "Video Game Critic, The". I'd strike my comment, but since he's only on the checklist, and with an "unreliable" x on it, it seems his reliability could use more discussion all the same, but at that venue, of of course, not here. Thanks for pointing this out to me though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - have to agree with nom Delete - all my search turned up is the generic team to other people Keep - previous AfD establishes notability МандичкаYO 😜 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikimandia - I don't know how much stock I'd put into that first AFD. I don't think they looked very closely at the references; much like the searches now, its mostly trivial passing mentions. No one seemed to look close enough to realize that 5 years ago, they just started piling on the keeps when they saw the (passing mention) source list. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sergecross73 Hmm after closer consideration, I think you're right. I was impressed by the SF Chronicle one but it just doesn't count as substantial, and the First Arkansas News is a self-published blog. МандичкаYO 😜 00:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not the site is a RS is pretty much irrelevant to this AfD, as being a RS doesn't automatically mean notability. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. As far as the sourcing goes, it's fairly light and by large the sources are all primary in that they link to stuff he's written and to sites that host his content. Could they help show that he could possibly now pass as a RS? Sure. Could they show notability? Nope. The citations in academic/scholarly sources don't really do anything either since one is dead (meaning that we cannot verify how usable it was as a source) and the other does not mention him at any length. He seems to be moderately popular but popularity has never been a thing that would give notability. Like being a RS it can make it more likely that there may be coverage, but it's never a guarantee and I've seen gaming personalities and websites with higher fan followings fail notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything via a search that would really prove that Mrozek or his website are ultimately notable enough for an article, so this is a delete on my end. If anyone wants to userfy the content then I have no problem with that, but it might be an extremely long wait before he passes the GNG threshold. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Of course, quotes from a subject can't be used to bolster the notability of the subject. What the subject needs to meet the GNG is to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's what's not there. Nha Trang Allons! 17:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the definition of "significant coverage" being used here? It's not at all clear to me what the "delete" group wants to see here, and I'm not particularly inclined to spend my time extensively researching the issue without exact clarity on what will be good enough -- an experience akin to trying to find a restaurant when the other person keeps saying "No, that's not what I want..." For example, The Blade (Toledo) has a June 4, 2013 article on DRM in video games, and has a paragraph-long quote from Mrozek ("David Mrozek, aka The Video Game Critic, founder of the site videogamecritic.com"), who's clearly being consulted for his expertise in the field. That seems more than good enough to me -- or will nothing less than a published, feature article on Mrozek and the site suffice to quell the trigger-happy folks? I apologize if this sounds irritable, but given the number of absolute garbage articles on WP, it's kind of appalling to me that we're spending time and effort on discussing the notability of one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet. (No doubt I'll get a bunch of acronyms and WP jargon in reply, to which I look forward with great eagerness...) Goldenband (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly defined where it was first linked above. You said it yourself—that Blade article would be about "DRM in video games" and not about Mrozek. We don't have a single reliable source to back your claim that the site is "one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet" without resorting to original research. Newspapers pull quotes from non-notable expertise all the time. The question is whether the coverage is wide and dedicated to the subject, which it is not in this case. The rest of your comment is gratuitously condescending. – czar 04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
But that definition (which I most assuredly read before posting) is very clear that the article subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", and yet that seems to be the standard folks are pushing for here. Hence my query: are we requiring "main topic" or not, and if not, what's the objective threshold for a mention to be non-trivial? As for the condescension, it wasn't intended as such -- Nha Trang's description as "sardonic" is closer to the mark -- but I make no secret of the fact that I've always viewed deletionism as a pox on Wikipedia, especially when it defies common sense (anyone who spends any time on video game forums can attest that the site is a primary touchstone for video game reviews) (and yes, I know that's not the standard we use, but at a certain point I get exasperated by the school of thought that seems to prioritize deleting content above creating it). Goldenband (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It's ironic you're being sardonic about jargon and acronyms, given that video games are among the most acronym and jargon-filled field outside of electrical engineering. That being said, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Wikipedia operates under various policies and guidelines, and rather than type out a couple pages of text, we refer to those guidelines through linked acronyms. Nha Trang Allons! 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's also no surprise that in any organization or field, the heavy use of acronyms, etc. tends to encourage a hermetic and bureaucratic environment -- a criticism of WP that's always been 100% on point -- and is often designed to make the interlocutor feel stupid or excluded. That's a wholly uncontroversial idea and goes back to Orwell, if not further; also see rule 5 on this page [1]. Goldenband (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Battlegrounds 2[edit]

Battlegrounds 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Battlegrounds 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant independent coverage on this mod. The1337gamer (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First time doing this, not sure if this is the proper way or not.

Battlegrounds 2 is a 10 year old free source mod, there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites. It was one of the major mods for half life 2 back in the early 2000s, but its popularity has dropped. The main places it is still discussed our the website and moddb, which I have linked in the edited page for the mod on Wikipedia. Of course there are steam groups and gamer clan websites, but those didn't seem relevant for a wiki page. There are numerous videos on youtube showcasing the mod with views in the hundreds of thousands. In the modding community for half life 2, BG2 is fairly well known. I will continue to update the wiki page with screenshots and updates if that will help.

I will update the main page with some of these references as well. (Will_Hawke)

Bro Team plays Battleground 2 http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33838347 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/557427 http://www.moddb.com/mods/battle-grounds-2/reviews https://www.facebook.com/pages/Battlegrounds-2/110892168947170 https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Battle_Grounds_2 http://www.thecarnivoressaga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1152 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?374348-Revolutionary-War-Half-Life-2-mod-The-Battle-Grounds-II!

  • Forums, wikis, users reviews, and YouTube playthroughs are not reliable sources. Facebook page is not independent. None of these help establish notability on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How are user reviews for a free product not a reliable source? It's third party, as close to secondary sources as a free video game can get, since it's independent of the mod team. It's a video game, how else am I going to show sources on it if not from third party reviews or discussions? The moddb links show user reviews, media updates, press releases and so on. I'm not sure what else I can add. I did add a french review of one of the mod updates to the main Bg2 wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talkcontribs)

  • Re:

    there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites

    If that is the case, then this content is better off hosted on another wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and without independent, reliable coverage, it would be impossible to write an authoritative article. On Wikipedia notability for inclusion is judged by the GNG and its associated guidelines, which have specific criteria for link quality. In a sentence, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is explained at WP:42. – czar 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware the requirements for an entry were so stringent. Wikipedia has a reputation for being wildly unreliable. My understanding is that there is a period of seven days before deletion. I will speak with older members of the community to see if there is "coverage" of the mod that meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talkcontribs)

  • Delete - per Czar's reasoning. Failing the WP:GNG due to no significant coverage in third party, reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You lot have obviously made up your minds to delete it regardless of the sources I proposed and this is simply going through the motions. Go ahead and delete the article and you won't waste anymore time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talkcontribs) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much that, as much as that, if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case. Also, these generally run for 7 days unless there is a really overwhelming amount of support to keep or delete something. It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment... Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Re:

    if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case.

You and your "associates" have made it perfectly clear, hence why I said to delete the page, either now or in due course.

It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment...

I thought I made it rather clear in the posts above and in the links provided that this is a rather old source mod played by a small community. I doubt we'll be flooded with comments. As you say, it's a "clean-cut case." I tried my best to provide a variety of sources that related to the mod, and they were not acceptable and that's an end to it. The mod can get exposure from other sites. Thank you all for your time. Unless this is your job, in which case you earned your wage.

Tally-ho Will Hawke (talkcontribs)

Fugenx[edit]

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

Non notable company. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Yes, it's in those few listings, but among hundreds of companies, I'd only consider that significant if a secondary source felt it appropriate to report the accolades. I did a ProQuest firehose search of 50+ databases and only got minor and press release hits. The app company had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. None of its apps have received enough reliable coverage to warrant so much as a sentence... so the article can't even act as a holding area for barely notable apps. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Here are the citations which I found out about the company: [2], [3]. Mr RD (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The second one is okay, but the first one isn't even an article... – czar 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The source is very reliable and trusted. Mr RD (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If we're talking about the same source, then yeah, it looks like less an article, and more like a headline with no real content.. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Earn to Die 2[edit]

Earn to Die 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Earn to Die 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

NOTE: Please add 'Keep' or 'Delete' so it would be easier to keep track of Wikipedians' opinions on the deleting of Earn to Die 2. Svetislavs

Non-notable video game. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I, personally, think that Earn to Die 2 is a notable mobile game. It has more than 1 million downloads on Google Play and has on multiple occasions been featured on the popular YouTube channel Annoying Orange. Svetislavs @ 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC+3)
Note to closing admin: Svetislavs (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
  • Delete We don't have a Earn to Die article, so what makes the sequel notable? And of course, those 'multiple occasions' mentioned on Annoying Orange probably came with promotional consideration for doing so. Nate (chatter) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reviews from WP:VG/RS-vetted Gamezebo, TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer, and 148Apps are sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. The other stuff (number of downloads from Google Play and coverage from unreliable YouTube hosts) has no bearing on this discussion—does it or does it not have reliable sources? It does. Three are usually enough to draw the line. @Mrschimpf and I dream of horses, courtesy ping – czar 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 15 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Park Survival Enhanced Edition[edit]

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

Article seems trivial. It lacks references and notability. A Google search mostly brings up links to forums where people have discussed it. I don't think any of its information would be of value to anyone who does not intend on playing the game. I also don't believe the information is really noteworthy enough to be mentioned at the List of Jurassic Park video games article. InGenuine (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Game map article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS refs. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214talk 00:35, 22 May 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OddballPetz[edit]

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

Completely non-notable video game mod. TKK! bark with me! 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, but there aren't enough sources to justify even that. – czar 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Software article of unclear notability. I'm not sure if this is a fan-made expansion/mod or a hoax, but if it were an official product, there would at least be some incidental mention on the web connecting it to PF Magic.Dialectric (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2015 (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.

May 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

List of games with prerendered backgrounds[edit]

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

Comes off as trivial, with a section in its table labeled "Resident Evil-like controls" doesn't have me thinking this article meets the notability criteria. GamerPro64 17:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - agree with nom МандичкаYO 😜 19:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a notable characteristic/criteria of a video game. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a distinct style of videogame graphics, so if there are reliable sources, an article could be written incorporating a list of notable examples. I can only find low-quality sources[4][5][6][7], or I'd argue keep/rewrite. But a legitimate article might be created. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Prerendering might be worth its own article or at least a mention on the video game glossary but this is not a helpful list only because I think it'll be impossible to find sources for most games on the list—prerendered graphics are not so notable a game element. Not worth redirecting either. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. Cola, your fourth link there is a mirror of Wikipedia. – czar 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On that note, source #2 is unusable as well. 1UP.com is usable, but not their blog entries, as they can be written by anyone signs up for an account - violating WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete A lack of sources that make note of this means that much of the list is unsourceable. It's likely that enough sources could be found to create an article about prerendered backgrounds in video games, with a few notable examples. Not an exhaustive list however. Reach Out to the Truth 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that this is not necessary and if anything should be a category. if by some chance this is kept we should drop the Resisden Evil like controls part since this list covers genes that would never have included this type of control scheme in the first place (side scrollers, point and click adventure games etc).--70.27.228.231 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - multiple reasons already explained above. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Aside from being a really weird thing to list when it should be a category, this is completely non-notable and doesn't even describe what "Resident Evil-like controls" are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngeaup (talkcontribs) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (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.

May 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy delete WP:A11 – czar 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Banterlope[edit]

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

No indication of importance Rberchie (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 should apply I think. And possibly A11? -- ferret (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2015 (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.

May 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Club Penguin. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Puffle[edit]

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

Not notable, mostly because I don't what the article is about Fuddle (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect And salt? Original AFD shouldn't have been keep in my view, but I guess those were different days. Nothing appears to have changed since the deletion from the 2nd AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Club Penguin as a useful redirect term. No signs of independent notability for "puffles" to justify having a separate page. – czar 06:21, 16 May 2015 (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.

May 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Blackjack Treasure[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable game that is not covered in any reliable sources. Additionally, the game is no longer exists as the site that was hosting it just gives a 404. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable game; looks like just another Flash game that hasn't received any significant coverage. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Userfy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Egg Returns Home[edit]

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

Not notable. There is no , or not much reliable sources found AdrianGamer (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't find any sources about it. It does seem like it has just come out, so it can easily be recreated if it gains notability. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete References on the article are 2 Primaries (steam) and one unreliable (Gaming on Linux allows user generated articles). News comes up with 1 unreliable routine article. Newspaper, books, and jstor, are all empty for this. Per WP:DWD I recommend the content list on List of indie game developers on Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to my sandbox. Instead of being deleted, please move it to either User:Anarchyte/Egg so that I can continue to work on it. Anarchyte (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2015 (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.

May 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 delete. per WP:SNOW ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Street Names of Los Santos in Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Street Names of Los Santos in Grand Theft Auto V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Street Names of Los Santos in Grand Theft Auto V" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Pure listcruft and indiscriminate info, but I can't find a speedy deletion criteria that fits, so let's discuss. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Love, love, love this game, but yeah, this is the stuff for the Grand Theft Auto Wiki, not Wikipedia. Inappropriate as a standalone article, and while easily verifiable, may be overly detailed to merge into Grand Theft Auto V.-War wizard90 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - per others МандичкаYO 😜 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a good article for those who want to know the street names. I think making the article was a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlliePop119 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, and a thoroughly non-notable list. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete we really don't need a standalone article for this. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Plasmanium[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A11, appears to be a non-notable in-game faction. ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability, especially in a real-world context. BenLinus1214talk 02:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be made up, no evidence whatsoever on this being a real thing. WHOISFANDOMtalk 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible hoax, if not then it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2015 (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.

May 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 04:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Aztez[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Indie video game by non-notable developer team originally scheduled to be released in 2014, pushed back to 2015, with no date specified in any WP:RS. ― Padenton|   18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   18:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty more too. As for crystal, the game is clearly in production and has had coverage across several years. Missing one's expected release date is not grounds for deletion. Secondary source news outlets clearly care about the product. czar  19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: Passing WP:GNG does not guarantee notability, or I would not have wasted my time nominating this. Everything you provided above gives it 'presumed notability', and per WP:GNG "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not", and it does violate WP:WWIN because it violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL as stated in the nomination. ― Padenton|   19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw the vague wave. I think I've cited enough sources to show that interest is sustained and that it isn't an article about predictions, rumors, or speculation. czar  19:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it's unreleased and doesn't have a scheduled date, but Czar has shown that there's considerable interest in this game from a number of reliable sources. As such, it is completely fine to have an article. Even if the game never is produced, the interest would make it vaporware of interest to keep an article on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as Czar has demonstrated, the game has received enough coverage to justify keeping this article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient amount of sources and coverage for its own article on Wikipedia. Pretty notable judging from them too. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Draft until the game is released and there are independent in depth reviews and other sources . Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2015 (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. Per SK1, nomination withdrawn and no other arguments to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Kaio: King of Pirates[edit]

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

No longer notable. Dead, and little information will ever be available about it sufficient for an article. Elassint Hi 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 17:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/10/5195502/inafunes-3ds-game-kaio-king-of-pirates-delayed-to-2014
  2. http://www.siliconera.com/2013/01/01/meet-the-cast-of-kaio-king-of-pirates/ (which also mentions it received additional coverage in a Japanese print magazine V Jump)
  3. http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/keiji-inafunes-action-adventure-game-kaio-king-of-pirates-canceled/#
  4. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/03/14/keiji-inafune-39-s-kaio-king-of-pirates-cancelled.aspx
That's just a sampling of some of them, there are a ton of other ones that can be found in a Google search. Siliconera alone wrote over 10 articles about the game. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If we really did take this approach, it seems like Keiji Inafune or Comcept would be better targets. Marvelous merely funded and cancelled it. They were the actual creators. That being said, I've added a lot to the article, so I don't think its warranted to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've given the article a complete rewrite, expanding it out of stub status using 10 sources that dedicated entire articles to the game, and that were all deemed reliable per WP:VG/S. There was a lot more known about the game than was present at the time of the nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • After seeing the article's rewrite, I've decided to strike out my delete vote for the article. Elassint Hi 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you for reconsidering, I appreciate it. With my rewrite, and the nomination rescinded, do you have any further thoughts, Stuartyeates? Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 8 May 2015 (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.

April 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Prey 2[edit]

Prey 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Prey 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Prey 2 has been cancelled, according to a statement from developers Bethesda Softworks during PAX Australia 2014. This debate is to give a final disposition to this cancelled game. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: meets WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG, see the plethora of reliable sources in references. Cancellation alone does not disqualify a topic from having an article. Esquivalience t 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's current sourcing is reliable and fine, but there's even more in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar  01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The sourcing seems more than sufficient to allow me to feel comfortable about keeping this as a standalone article. I wouldn't exactly oppose a proposition to merge it into Prey (video game)#Sequel but I don't think it is necessary -- at this point, it would be an editorial content decision. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not a good nomination. There are a ton of sources already in the article, and even more to be found upon searching. As Salv says above, sometimes when this happens its appropriate to merge it to the original game's article, but there's plenty of content available already in the article, so that's not a good choice either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 6 May 2015 (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.

April 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. czar  19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oath of Genesis[edit]

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

Non-notable game, no claims of notability and only primary or self-generated sources available. Declined speedy since A7 does not apply to software products. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: No evidence of notability for this recently-published game. The WP:SPA contributor is also the item's author and publisher. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT. The article is based on primary sources and only talks about gameplay, plot, story and release. The article has nothing to suggest that it is notable and a Google search did not help. — Yash! [talk] 02:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Dolescum (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Game is currently in review under IMDb and other game rating sites. Also provided official website and fan page. Search about "Oath of Genesis" and "Oath of Genesis ML" and you can learn about it. Game information is available on Wiki. So, there is more reason to delete this article. KevalPandya (Talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: IMDb rating is ready for insertion into wikipedia article. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Is there anything I need to prove that my article has notability ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Some days ago a article was released in newspaper about owner and oath of genesis game by writer. Can it be submit as evidence as notability and independent source ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • @KevalPandya: It depends on various factors like the newspaper, who wrote it, what the newspaper is in relation to the game/owner, and so on. For example, if the LA Times wrote about the game and was not just reprinting a press release (or basing the bulk of the article on the press release) then that could be used. However if the owner's college newspaper wrote about the game/owner then that cannot be used since the owner attends the college and they would have a vested interest in writing about him. Similarly if the game is only briefly mentioned in relation to something else and/or is only 1-3 sentences long, then that won't show a depth of coverage and would be a WP:TRIVIAL source at best. The only way to really know is to see the newspaper article in question, to be honest. I also want to clarify a bit on the IMDb ratings. Since these ratings are the result of anonymous users logging in to the system and leaving a rating, they cannot be used as a reliable source for notability. At best IMDb can be used as a trivial source to back up basic information like cast lists and release information and even then that can be debatable. For example, at one point this one woman managed to successfully insert a profile in IMDb that asserted that she was going to play She-Hulk in one of the previous Avengers movies. This ended up being false and it was removed, but it took a really, really long time for IMDb to catch this- and this was on a very high profile film. That's kind of the reason why IMDb is kind of unusable for most data, let alone notability purposes. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically what you need right now are reviews in outlets like IGN, PC Gamer, and other review outlets that would show up as critical reviews on places like Metacritic. Examples of this can be seen here and here. I'm not really seeing this and to be honest, it doesn't look like there is any coverage at all for this game. Primary sources (anything released by the company itself) cannot show notability and to be honest, you really shouldn't be showing merchant links in the article at all. Not only can this be seen as an attempt to promote the game, but a large reason why they're considered inappropriate is because including these links can be seen as an endorsement of the product and the sellers/websites and Wikipedia wants to avoid seeming like they endorse any specific product or seller. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/move to AfC. Right now this game does not pass notability guidelines. There has been no coverage of the game in any outlet, at least in any that we can verify. There is apparently a news article out there, but that one news article will not be enough to show notability for the game. I think that the best course of action right now is to move this to the draftspace at WP:AfC. Not only will this give the editor a chance to work on the article while more sources become available, but AfC will allow another editor to look at the article and approve it before it gets resubmitted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/move to AfC. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Pax 09:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Information, details, sources and references are updated. Check and review. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • You cannot !vote "Keep" more than once in the same deletion debate. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I haven't found any coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, as some others have pointed out, judging by the article creator and game creators same name, there's very likely some WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues here as well. (Sidenote: Also strange that all the characters of this game take character names from this game.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have submitted IMDb source. Also I have submitted Wikia Article. But both has removed it. Also, owner of game can submit article to Wikipedia. The point of view of article writer should be neutral. So, I have submitted as view of normal editor. Also, I haven't put any promotion links or text for game promotion. Soon I will submit rating from game rating sites as notability and independent source. So, there should be no objection about this article on Wikipedia. KevalPandya (Talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Again, please stop writing "Keep" before every comment you make. Its only done once per discussion, so the discussion closer can roughly see the number individuals who contributed, and their stance to go with it. You've said "Keep" once already, so you shouldn't any more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep:Icekings25 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)I don't think that this page should be deleted. Its obvious that this guy is a new user so it takes time for the independent sources and I think that soon it will pass notability guidelines. So he must get some more time to prove himself.
  • That's not a valid reason to keep an article. I don't mean to be blunt, but if he doesn't know what he's doing, he shouldn't be trying to create entire articles all by himself yet. But regardless, the fate of the article is decided by the third party reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, not the skill-level of the editor. Additionally, I find it rather suspicious that your first edit in 2 years, and your 3rd edit all time, was to leave a comment here at a deletion discussion. Please be aware that this is not a vote, and that editors are not to be asking for people to comment just to defend their article for them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keval Pandya (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC): @Sergecross73... Hello, Icekings25 is my companion and i told him to give review about my article. I didn't tell him to defend my article from deletion. As I mentioned before, I will submit reviews by game rating sites as they approve it. What we want is little time to edit article. So, I request you to remove deletion tag from article. And in future if you see any text related to game promotion, you can delete my article even without notice. So, I request you.
  • That is not how Wikipedia handles things though. If no sources exist during the course of these discussions, then the article would be deleted for now, and recreated only if/when enough third party sources cover the title in detail. If you wish to pursue creating the article after it gets deleted, you can still work on a WP:DRAFT and then get it approved through the AFC process - Articles for Creation. (This is what the editors above were referring to.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to draft. There are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, which is definitely a bad sign. If we move it to draft space, the author can work on it in peace and add sources as they become available. That's a viable alternative to deletion, though I kind of doubt that it will become notable in any reasonable period of time given its current lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate... Hello, I saw a Wikipedia page like mine game. Ys: The Ark of Napishtim. Can you differentiate that page and mine. Both page has given same sources. Also, admin has just put "verification" tag on that. There is no speedy deletion tag on that page. On other hand, i have also given information from IMDb. One editor has complained me that, that I have edited every thing. But, i have just put plot correctly and my profile small bio correctly. Everything else is generated by IMDb. So, Please remove speedily deletion tag from this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevalPandya (talkcontribs) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated. It doesn't matter if you add a link to the IMDb. The other article is notable because it has coverage in reliable sources. If you do a Google search for that article, it turns out there are many reviews listed at Metacritic, including IGN. Notability is intrinsic to a topic, and sources merely need to exist rather than be listed in the article. That means that nobody is forced to add sources to the article, but they should. If no sources exist, then the article can be deleted. That's what's going on here. We need coverage in reliable source, and the IMDb is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Additionally, a simple search shows that there are all sorts of sources available for the Ys article you listed above. There's 35 separate reviews at the PS2 version's MetaCritic page alone. The difference is that there are zero reviews available at MetaCritic for Oath of Genesis, and zero sources available at all for it that aren't connected to you. I assure you that, if someone nominated that Ys article for deletion, someone would point out all the sources that exist but just aren't on there yet, and the deletion discussion would be dismissed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Good point, there is a difference between a badly written article about a notable subject and an ariicle about a subject that is not notable.--64.229.166.24 (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-I can't even find a page on Gamefaqs for this. The IMDB page does not sound like its a video game either looking over it. Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (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.

April 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Bloodborne characters[edit]

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

The list of characters is not notable enough to have its own page. Very limited information is provided. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per what was already said here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as I said in merge discussion, not worth redirecting and a list of only 2 characters with no significant commentary. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Character lists tend to fall under WP:GAMECRUFT if not notable enough, and this is no exception. BlookerG talk 12:02, 26 April 2015 (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.

April 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 redirect to Mojang. Two "Keep" opinions were provided. One was a generic WP:PERABOVE which I've set aside as it's not clear to what it is referring. The other offers more detail, but there's no clear rationale for keeping that's based on a policy. Redirecting rather than deleting as a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dinnerbone[edit]

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

Aside from working as a programmer for a company that has received a decent amount of attention, the subject of this page does not convey that this individual is any more notable than the forty-six other Mojang employees. Unless there are sources that indicate that this figure has achieved something notable themselves, this page should be deleted. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are news links from over the years but nothing significant or notable and Books found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking over various factors, he has 428,000 followers on Twitter and 42,000 subscribers on YouTube which is better than most developers. And using this search it seems he's a public facing developer, being quoted plenty of times about news, changes and releases relating to Minecraft. I can at least say there's no mention of his rework of the Minecraft Ender Dragon and other points that would be worth mentioning in the article --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based on User:DerryAdama's comments, it seems reasonable to keep the article. Dinnerbone is probably the most widely recognizable employee of Mojang, after Bergensten and Persson, even ranking higher than Mojang's co-founders. Whether this is due to prevalence online in social (or other) media or otherwise is debatable, but ultimately the perks of being a 'public facing' developer makes this article worth keeping. After all, one wouldn't propose a the page for a writer's magnum opus for deletion only because their other books aren't notable enough for articles of their own. Plot Citizen (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Most of the article is fluff and can be summarized in one sentence the company article under a section called "key people" or something. Additionally this article is basically an orphan, except for being included on the Mojang template. МандичкаYO 😜 04:17, 28 April 2015 (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.

April 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a skull[edit]

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

Prodded for WP:GNG and WP:NSONG with no references and no claim of notability. Prod removed with the comment, "this is definitely relevant, and the capitalization is correct per the original usage. this is one of the first "memes" -- thus its historical relevance. (I deleted the recommendation for article deletion)" Now brought to AfD for further discussion. Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I know this song exists, and the user who removed the prod was correct, this was one of the first "memes", in the middle 1990s, before most of the people who use "memes" were even born. However, the only references I can supply are to the magazine itself. I had the actual song on an AP coverdisk myself from the middle 1990s to the middle 2000s, but I fear I have since thrown it away. I might still have the actual file saved on my computer (I transferred the entire hard disk of my A4000 to a modern Linux PC before the A4000 died), but I'm not at all certain about it. JIP | Talk 19:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The calls for keep above have no policy-backed rationale. If the subject is indeed important, it will have received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. I would entertain a redirect to Before the War (as a useful search term) but only if this subject was mentioned and reliably sourced within the article, which it is not. czar  21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a single [{WP:RS]], not sure why it is notable Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NSONG. The article has no references at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cloud9 (team)[edit]

Cloud9 (team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cloud9 (team)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of notability is given. Notability tag was removed without any effort made to show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The intrinsic problem is that articles like this straddle WP:CREATIVE, WP:ATHLETE, WP:COMPANY and WP:ENT. The frontline gamers who are known both as entertainers and eSports Competitors, if we cross WP:PORNBIO into this where to be notable you need to have awards and substantial investment into a scene, then C9 have fulfilled this. Per WP:ENT, They even have a significant cult following as can be shown in the support present like in their recent performance in the NA LCS Springslit. Per WP:COMPANY there is even more Secondary and tertiary coverage to C9. Ideally WP:ESPORTS task force needs to come up with guidelines on this, but due to the only editors working on WP:ESPORTS articles being @ImRespawn and Prisencolinensinainciusol: the coverage is sparse, so just give it a WP:CHANCE, don't WP:DEMOLISH and allow for some WP:POTENTIAL.
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As DerryAdama has pointed out Cloud9 has had pretty extensive coverage, including in some mainstream outlets. I've noticed that a number of esports articles end up getting nominated for deletion by an editor who is presumably unfamiliar with the subject. That being said I'm going to see if I can draft up some esports notability guidelines so it's a bit clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talkcontribs) 04:52, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with this Engadget article. Yes, its a RS, but very little of the article is about Cloud 9, and of that already small part, much of it is a few direct quotes from one of their members rather than any coverage on them. And the IGN source? Less than 2 sentences of it actually discuss Cloud 9 itself. I hope there are better sources out there, so far every one I'm checking is very trivial coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to League of Legends Championship Series or another competition article, maybe Dota? I reviewed all of the above sources. The only ones that matter for our purposes (secondary, reliable, independent sources) are:
All the other stuff was passing/non-dedicated mentions or unreliable sources. At most, the reliable ones of the lot could be used to source a few sentences on the team's sponsorships, but not much more. I'm willing to change my mind if others can find articles from vetted video games sources. Myself, I found only passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search—not nearly enough to justify an article. I'd entertain a redirect to one of the competitions as a useful search term, but I'm not seeing enough to write a sourced article on the team, as is. And for the whole content guideline discussion above—the only relevant guideline for this article type is the general notability guideline: either sources exist or they don't. In this case, the sourcing is very thin. Please ping me if you find more (non-English and offline) sources. czar  20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: with the custom search; did you search Cloud 9 or Cloud9 because Cloud 9 doesn't bring any relevant results but "Cloud9" does. Showing IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer and gamestar.hu on the first page. Then miastogier.pl, polygon.com and 4gamer.net on the second.--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Both (as well as other variants), but I also established that having a bunch of search hits from IGN, Kotaku, doesn't actually mean that the subject was covered in any meaningful way. I reviewed the sources and only listed those that I thought mattered towards the subject's case. The rest were passing mentions and/or had just as much coverage about a number of other non-notable teams. czar  02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you here. A ton of trivial mentions, very little significant coverage. I'd recommend a redirect as well, though I don't know what the best target would be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I added League of Legends Championship Series as my suggested target. From the coverage, the team is best known for their League and Dota competition, so one of those where they're actually mentioned by name would be best. I chose the former. czar  13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually redirecting is an incredibly poor idea, as alone there are six other teams not including the LCS team in six different games. People coming here may be looking for information on the match fixing by C9 in the CS:GO sphere

The Dota team is the current record holder for the longest competitive game ever

There is plenty of coverage from reliable eSports sources like the DailyDot, but your search doesn't curate them as most of the Gaming news sites don't give much coverage to eSports, other than saying it exists.
--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
People also come for all sorts of things we don't provide. The idea of a redirect is to provide a reasonable result for someone looking for the subject, which the above redirect would do. This said, I dug around in your sources again (had seen the Kotaku article and pcgamesn has no hallmarks of reliability). http://www.dailydot.com/tags/cloud-9/ would be very useful if we considered Daily Dot reliable. I've brought the site up for consideration at WT:VG/RS. czar  00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  • Keep Redirect - per Czar, and my commentary above, to his redirect suggestions. Its a plausible search term, but right now, a vast majority of the coverage is extremely trivial. Redirect for now, and maybe spin it out to its own article if it gets a few more sources that are not first party, not trivial, and reliable, like the types of sources found at WP:VG/RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The initial spotchecked sources did not meet the definition of "significant coverage", but the ones pointed out by Czar and Hahnchen do, so I'm find with keeping now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found quite a few reliable sources focused on C9 that I'm starting to put in the article. I have no idea how everyone managed to find so few. There's even a print source, a cover article in Playboy that featured Cloud9. I think beyond a doubt that the article will be a keep. The only logical RD I can think of would be to something like List of esports teams or something, since C9 has a notable prsence in several games, not to the LCS article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Covered extensively in reliable sources independent of the subject. Playboy OnGamers Even teams which haven't been covered to this degree should probably be kept, and notability guidelines should more closely follow WP:NSPORT which is more almanac-y in nature than other video game guidelines. - hahnchen 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources provided by --- :D Derry Adama shows the subject clearly passes GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Derry Adama's persuasive arguments. Pax 23:53, 26 April 2015 (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.

April 19 (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. Nakon 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Megaverse Simulation Network[edit]

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

Multiples Google News, Books and browser searches with "Megaverse Simulation Network" and with "Open Source" and "software" added provided nothing. I'm not an expert with software or this product but it seems there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Finding no secondary source coverage in the typical searches, but didn't look too hard considering that the "game" and "genre" aspect of the article's first draft appears to be a joke. The software is clearly described as a simulator and not a real-time strategy game. Please ping me if other sources, esp. non-English or offline, are found. czar  02:24, 20 April 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2[edit]

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable subject; mostly promotional (article) in nature. Quis separabit? 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (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, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject has been reviewed by many outlets that the video games wikiproject has deemed reliable. Prose quality concerns are not deletion concerns and can be easily fixed. Withdrawal recommended. czar  00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Was just about to post the same link Czar had - and there's at least 3-4 good RS reviews in that list that meet WP:VG/S standards (eg PSM Magazine, Play Magazine, G4 TV). --MASEM (t) 01:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable as described above. Not really promotional, just short with an excessive list of songs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Is this a mistake? I don't see how it meets WP:PROMO. or fails notability. ― Padenton|   02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of it was cleaned up. @Rms125a@hotmail.com czar  03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahh that makes a little more sense. ― Padenton|   16:16, 22 April 2015 (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.

April 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The Delete !votes are pretty much "not notable" without explanation and without addressing the sourcing unearthed by Satellizer ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Kern[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. In its current state, the only information in here is that he used to work on World of Warcraft and that he used to work on Firefall. I'm not sure what could go into this article that couldn't be added to the articles on Firefall or World of Warcraft. Breadblade (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as
Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra
Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget
The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia
Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247
Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247
Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247
Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247
Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247
The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though many are duplicate coverage). czar  02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar  03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough sources for career history, not notable enough to be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page or any other game's pages except for Firefall.--Frybread (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (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. North America1000 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Online Global[edit]

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

Note that a duplicate article was created at Dragon Ball Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A proposed project that has no secondary source coverage. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (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. Soft Deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Derketo (Conan)[edit]

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

Character from the Conan series that was barley ever used at all-probably a redirect or merge be the best for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment, have added some words to article about character being in a mmorpg and so added to wikiproject videgames deletion list. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2015 (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.

April 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Dissident's point is heard, but the subject does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:CREATIVE, and the article is practically just a credits list. I'm also opting not to redirect per WP:ASTONISH -- just because he's mention in the infobox of another article that is totally not about him doesn't mean the title should point there. This title can be recreated and redirected to an appaopriate target by anybody who finds one. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This wasn't particularly strong consensus towards either outcome and I hesitated for a while between an NC, redirect or delete closure, and initially opted for what seemed the simplest (delete, with the option to redirect the title) -- however, after a request by the subject, I am changing my close for no consensus (thus restoring the article). Good points are raised in favor of keeping, deleting, or redirecting the article but no specific argument trumps any other. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Matt Furniss[edit]

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

No non-trivial third-party coverage to indicate how the subject is notable. Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Don't see why this is even up for debate, as Furniss is a well known sound designer from the 90s. It would be different if he worked on games without Wikipedia articles, but that isn't the case here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment As I've already said, being involved with a production does not in itself satisfy WP:BIO notability. Robin Harlan has a lot more credits as a foley artist, but as with Furniss, you won't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dissident93, if no sources discuss him in detail, would you at least be able to show that he is "well known" by the guideline for creative professionals? czar  18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: Finding reliable third party sources on any vgm related topic can be difficult, even for the way more known ones such as Uematsu and Sakuraba. By the way, does rule number 3 on the RS link seems to contradict what Ohnoitsjamie said above, or am I mis-reading? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There would have to be some way of signifying his impact on the field, then. The very idea of Wikipedia is to report the sources and if there are no sources, there is no article we will be able to write, so there has to be a really good reason or some immense notability for doing so. What is rule #3? Don't see any numbered at WP:RS. czar  18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - No notability indicated. The list of contributions is just a guy doing his job.--Rpclod (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2015 (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.

April 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's[edit]

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

The article does not meet general notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources. It is entirely composed of original research, and is written like a game guide. Wani (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should be removed because I worked very hard on this article and I dedicated about 3 hours of my own life to this. I just want to help. I'll edit it and make it better, just please don't delete it.

There are other outlets to publish game guides, such as game wikis or wikias, your own website, etc. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a repository of all conceivable information. Articles must meet notability guidelines, and avoid what Wikipedia is not. Some content here might be incorporated into the main article, but effort does not count in discussions, policies and guidelines do. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and not meeting WP:LISTN. following up on my previous comment, very little, if any of this content belongs in the main article, and should simply be succinctly summarized. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gameguides are outside the scope of what we cover, but you can take it to another wiki. The minigames do not have independent coverage from outside sources. (?) Not worthwhile to redirect to the game. czar  22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nihilumbra. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BeautiFun Games[edit]

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

Unremarkable games manufacturer. Seems to have only created 1 game, and no independent coverage or reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Nihilumbra, the company's (as yet) sole creation. In the future, if they publish more notable titles, the redirect can be re-expanded into a full article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect as the company has only released one game and News searches show many results but basically all for the game. I can continue searching but I think I know what I'll find, not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 20 April 2015 (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.

April 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

O2Jam[edit]

O2Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "O2Jam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Notifying Woodroar, Marasmusine. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FAILN, I was unable to find any coverage any coverage beyond routine mentions of any game WP:ROUTINE, the only Scholarly article on the evolution of the Chinese gaming industry mentions in a list but nothing else. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend create an article for this content in Wikia.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. When weighing the arguments, I seem to lean towards a "keep" closure, but the points brought forward by Czar, NARH and Johnny aren't exactly dismissable either, so I'll close as NC (hoping Serge's sources will be used for the article), but with no objection if later consensus on the talk page is to redirect the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Hopper[edit]

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

Another editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Virtual Boy games as a valid search term. @JohnnyMrNinja, this looks straightforward, so how would you feel about withdrawing the deletion nom for a redirect? (Such solutions are better outcomes to pursue before coming to AfD.) czar  10:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like Nintendo Power. See here. 1up.com, a reliable source, covered it a bit, and suggested that Nintendo Power had even written a review for the game, according to this. This fansite seems to suggest it made appearances in a bunch of other print magazines at the time as well. I think this just barely scrapes above the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar  22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as barely meeting notability per the above. I did a quick search for Japanese sources and didn't find anything. I'm sure it was covered in Famitsu and other trade magazines, but their articles are not available online. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we not make "there must be sources" arguments? Let's try to find these external reviews before we keep based on their supposed existence and then no one ever does the sleuthing to find them. If we can also keep in mind the game wasn't actually released, so the existence of these reviews (Famitsu's for example) will have been a fluke—more unlikely than not. czar  12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Can we not dismiss something about which you obviously know very little? Famitsu and other trade magazines often have articles on games 1-2 years before they come out. They'll have announcement articles, productions articles, and even articles about a project which has been shut down. I never said there would be reviews, but simply articles about the game. I saw these kinds of articles all the time when I lived in Japan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar  15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles are kept on the basis of sourcing potential all the time, especially when there is reason to believe that they're out there but we haven't found th all yet, the prime example being games of the early/mid 90s, when nothing's online and it's hard to track down print sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd like to think that I've been following the vg AfD beat for a while now and I can't call recall a single AfD that was kept on the basis that coverage must exist somewhere, or that a Nintendo Power review may or may not exist and that Famitsu must have some non-English coverage. In fact, I haven't heard of articles being kept based on their potential for sourcing rather than what has actually been confirmed to exist (which is why "sources must exist" is at WP:ATA). I'm willing to even help look for coverage but we have zero leads that this other stuff exists. What are the chances that any editor will reasonably be willing to put in more effort than that? This article will have been kept at AfD and remain unsourced despite being non-notable. czar  02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, if the article is kept, it'd be because a nationally published , well-known, reliable source magazine did a 2 page article on it, and that people reasonably assumed that somewhere out there in the world, there's a second print source out there to make it meet the "multiple sources" aspect of the GNG. (Not to mention, the various brief mentions out there.) Also, I've been commenting at AFD for at least as long as you have as well - I know there's precent for my stance as well. I'll have to do some digging to find some examples... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 6 May 2015 (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\ 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sergecross73. I think it squeaks by. Pax 00:25, 6 May 2015 (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. In the absence of reliable sources, a smerge seems inadvisable. Deor (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fighting Is Magic: Premium[edit]

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

Non-notable, sourced solely to blogs. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete All sourced to blogs. Don't see anything that could be moved into the main Fighting is Magic article. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Fighting Is Magic. Does not need an own article. Gial Ackbar (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero secondary coverage—not even enough to justify the aforementioned redirect. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is not worthwhile to redirect on the basis of primary sources. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are unearthed. czar  11:29, 12 April 2015 (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.

April 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion, notably after the thorough discussion of sources by Tokyogirl79, can be summed up as "no consensus between delete and weak keep". There was canvassing but this does not seem to have noticeably skewed the outcome. The article survives by default by a slim margin, but can be relisted if it is not improved in terms of sourcing in a reasonable amount of time.  Sandstein  21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

MonsterMMORPG[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the game. Quinto Simmaco and I read through the references and they are little more than game guides, interviews, and/or Pokemon comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - It has significant coverage in reliable sources, which means it probably passes the notability threshold. Engadget, SiliconEra are easy-to-find English language sources; there many more sources in other languages (which is understandable since the dev himself is Turkish). ☺ · Salvidrim! · 
@Salvidrim!, courtesy ping, considering the discussion below czar  18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I see some coverage, but I don't see it as significant. Engadget and Siliconera are both interviews, which is uncomfortably close to SPS territory. Merlin'in Kazanı and Techshout are trivial. The others may be high-quality, reliable sources, but I think a native speaker familiar with WP:IRS—or, preferably, WP:VG/RS—would need to weigh in on that. They certainly look to me like the spammy linkspam/game guide sites we generally consider unreliable (as others mentioned above), but of course looks can be deceiving. Woodroar (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were the aforementioned Engadget/Joystiq interview and this PR mention. Not nearly enough to substantiate an article, but one Turkish source looks okay: Oyungezer is a print magazine. For me, this nom hinges on haberimport, which appears to follow a press ethics policy for reliability. If the site was deemed reliable, I would change my conclusion, but its article on MonsterMMORPG appears to be lifted in large part from a press release. The phrase "Oyun sayfasında temel olarak harita ekranını kullanıyoruz." shows up in several other sources as well as another cited source. Repackaged press releases wouldn't count as significant coverage, leaving an interview, a small article, and a few passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are unearthed. czar  11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As for coverage the MonsterMMORPG page has four references listed - video game reliable sources. The listings are as following: full article by Jessica Conditt on Joystiq, full article by Chris Priestman on siliconera (Alexa Rank: 10454 , Page Rank: 5), game listing on GameSpot and editorial given game wiki on IGN. They also include the following references that are English and all have editorial publishing: Kyle Hayth article on browsergamez (Alexa Rank: 208890, Page Rank: 4), Remko Molenaar and Darren Henderson editors article at OnRPG (Alexa Rank: 68021, Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, game listing on whatmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 817321 , Page Rank: 2), editorial game listing and special given developer blog on mmorpg.com (Alexa Rank: 12513 , Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, editorial approved game listing on indiedb (Alexa Rank: 16606, Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on gameslikefinder (Alexa Rank: 50514 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on xmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 209912 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on gameguyz (Alexa Rank: 59045 , Page Rank: 3), game listing by staff Demetrius Crasto on techshout (Alexa Rank: 84868 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on newrpg (Alexa Rank: 1248161 , Page Rank: 0), editorial game listing on mmogames (Alexa Rank: 38427 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on kpopstarz (Alexa Rank: 11928 , Page Rank: 5).
The non english noteable references are as follows: game article and extensive video by Marlene Kless on games.de (German, Alexa Rank: 313642 , Page Rank: 4), editorial game listing on 07073.com (Chinese, Alexa Rank: 3197 , Page Rank: 5), game article, listing and review by Allan Valin on baixaki.com.br (Portuguese, Alexa Rank: 593 , Page Rank: 6), game review by Anh Đức on game4v.com (Vietnamese, Alexa Rank: 9576 , Page Rank: 2) which is currently maintenance but visible at google cache, game review by M.İhsan Tatari on oyungezer (Turkish, Also Printed, Alexa Rank: 34818 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Ceyda Doğan on merlininkazani (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 18095 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Engin Yüksel on teknolojioku (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 16365 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game news on indir.com (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 27852 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on frpnet.net (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 170997 , Page Rank: 4).
There absolutely could be more listings, news or articles added, but when all the information provided is consireded, I believe this game deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. Knost05 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Knost05 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Alexa and Page Rank don't matter. The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles. We don't care about games databases, fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published articles, or trivial content like two sentences and a screenshot. We need substantial articles written by third-parties to prove that a subject is important enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. (What other languages allow or don't allow also doesn't matter. They're all separate.) I should also mention that you appear to be involved in the development of the game yourself, which is a conflict of interest that you should have divulged immediately. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely believe that there are substantial articles proving that this game is substantial enough in importance that it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. According to WP:RELIABLE , news organizations can be counted as reliable. References siliconera, browsergamez, techshout, teknolojioku, 07073 are counted as news sites within Google, who don't count a site as a legitimate news site lightly, meaning these sites have been found worthy and have the authority to be counted as news sites. Indiedb and Baixaki also have a lot of references from websites that are counted as legitimate news sites on Google. Also, MonsterMMORPG being listed at IGN, Engadget, Absolute_Games, GameSpot means this game was noteable enough to get their attenion and get added to their websites by staff members. This is important because they don't simply add every game to their listings, especially Indie games. Add to the list onrpg editors as they have a great history with game journalism. Now, looking into Alexa and PageRank, I believe they do matter. Alexa rank is an important aspect to legitimize if a site has authority/is respected or not. If these sites were not an authority on their subject, they would not get the amount of visitors needed to legitimize it as an authority on Alexa. And per the Wikipedia page on PageRank "PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to determine a rough estimate of how important the website is." If properly investigated, I believe that you will find that none of these references are fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As for my involvement with MonsterMMORPG, I did not know that I needed to divulge whether or not I played this game as I thought this was a discussion about the merits of MonsterMMORPG and not a closed off back and forth between current Wikipedia editors. Who I am to MonsterMMORPG shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the references are evaluated on their own merits. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Which they were. And the implications of a conflict of interest should be straightforward. I suggest reading through the guideline if you may have one. czar  00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a "closed-off debate", you're free to participate, you're just supposed to disclose your connections to the subject too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete lack of reliable sources LADY LOTUSTALK 12:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its seems the source-hunting has had an opposite effect on me this time - the coverage found so far is extremely weak, with most of it either not meeting standards at WP:RS, or not meeting what's needed to have significant coverage. When these bad sources are stripped away, there's hardly anything left, in sources or source-able content. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Czar pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. The self-promotion and attempts at ref bombing don't help either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is listed here as part of a general list of Articles for creation submissions that have subsequently been nominated for deletion. That's how I found out about it, though it's important to note that any article going through those processes will be listed there. PS: FanOfNaruto has been indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant promotion, not enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - the Silcon Era source is probably the best one of the lot, though that's not really enough. What we really need is significant coverage from general purpose, non-fan based media. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • COmment: Here's a brief runthrough of the sources using Google Translate:
Ultimately what we have here are three usable sources: Engadget, Silicon Era, and Oyungezer. Two of them are interviews and Oyungezer is a little iffy since it looks to be somewhat based on a press release and doesn't appear to be a review of the game itself per se. It's enough to where I can see arguments for a weak keep, but it really should have more/better sourcing than this if it is kept- otherwise it will likely get challenged and nominated for deletion again. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've posted this response two other places, but I wanted to make sure it was seen by the people in this discussion as well. My relation to the game is that I'm a Chat Master for it's chat function and I play the game. I wasn't asked to create an account to argue this point I was asked to go and fix it up as the person that created it did a pretty poor job. When I went to the page to edit it I saw the Delete Nomination at which point I weighed in. I didn't think I needed to state my direct relation to the game, but after reading Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) explanation I understand why this might have been of importance.

'I would like to apologize for my role in the back and forth of it all, but I do stand by my opinion. I believe that this game is getting railroaded when it has a legitimate reason to be added to English Wikipedia. When looking at some other games, as the much more aggressive/unprofessional user added under me, it seems your editors aren't as strict.

'Either way, I understand that as it is the page is lacking, but it does have some articles that would count as references and I hope the page gets a weak keep at the very least so that I have an opportunity to edit it and get it up to snuff.

'Thanks for your time, Knost05 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CANVASSING. The Superonline Iletisim Hizmetleri user 176.233.41.152 has been energetically canvassing people to come here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I got an invitation by some ip person to come here as a neutral party. I am a bit puzzled by a comment user @Woodrar made. "The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles." May I ask how you would know whether a writer's byline was indeed his true birth given name or a psuedonym? Thanks if you get a moment to answer that. Until then, Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can't know for sure, but usually you can take a pretty good guess based on what the name is. If the person writes by the name of "Don Johnson" and/or is known outside of the website by such a name, then its likely their name. If they go by "Doombringer1987", you make a pretty good guess that's not they're real name. Many video game and music websites allow any old person to create an account with any old name and let them write whatever they want. This sort of content fails WP:USERG - it's not considered a reliable sources in the Wikipedia context, and thus, is not usable to prove the notability of a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was canvassed to look here by the IP user too. Looking at this discussion, I'd like to point out that Delete and Keep aren't the only options, Move to Draft space is a valid alternative - and judging by the knife edge the sources are walking - this would seem the better solution for this article. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Canvassed by new user (assuming same IP entity), I agree with the above statement that it should be moved out of the mainspace and put in the draft namespace. ~HackedBotato Chat with meContribs 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - It has enough references, is not orphan, instead of being loosing the time, you should be improving this article.--P2prules (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you point out with sources you find to be both reliable and cover the subject in significant detail? Also, not being an orphan is hardly a testament to being notable. Virtually any article can linked to if you try hard enough, notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vampirelord1985 canvassed me too, apparently expecting a reliable Keep !vote based upon my "experience, review and edit history of video game articles". But unbeknownst to him I hate vampire fiction and collectible card-games. So, nuke it. ...What? Those aren't valid reasons? Well, OK. Let's go with WP:ADMASQ. Good old reliable ADMASQ. Pax 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Canvassed I too was just canvassed on this, based on the sender's belief that "you are a true editor of Wikipedia who works to expand it instead of shrinking"... which is a frankly not the most likely claim to make about my editing history, but does make it clear which way the canvassing is pulling. This discussion should be weighed with such canvassing attempts in mind. (I am not casting any !vote on the article myself; I have not reviewed it and have other things to do with my day.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I got canvassed, too. I don't really have a problem with sending it to draft space, but I'm a bit worried that it might end up turning into massive drama like Heaven Sent Gaming (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming). If people are willing to put up with the SPAs, promotional edits, and other drama again, go for it. Unless Jimbo puts me on the Wikimedia payroll, I'm unlikely to babysit the article, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - When/If this is moved to draft may I start adding to it and cleaning it up? Thank you for your time everyone, I'm sorry some have made this a less than easy discussion.Knost05 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Knost05, you should start cleaning it up now; if the article really can be salvaged (I'm still hedging my bets) then it should be improved before the AfD closes. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Primefac Of course, I'll get on it as soon as possible. Thank you again everyone for your time and patience. Knost05 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Canvassed. :l By the IP listed above. However, I don't exactly see any reason to delete the article, so... Weak Keep? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, this (possible sock-puppeteer) canvasser is starting to grind my gears. Speedy Delete per G11. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: While I was notified about this by the mad canvasser, I see no reason not to offer neutral input.
The Siliconera bit is good, as listed at WP:VG/RS, which says that its "Interviews can be used in any article"; and Engadget is also listed as an RS. That's two good sources (although they're both interviews, which makes me a little hesitant, but not enough to change my !vote), and I unfortunately don't know Turkish to be able to do anything more than speculate based on the structure of the rest. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Supernerd11. Between the Silicon era piece which is listed at WP:VG/RS, and also the Engadget one that is also listed there, this article subject has significant coverage over multiple sources, and has crossed the threshold of WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The canvassing issue aside, there appears to be substantial enough coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was canvassed to keep this, however looking at the sources and reading through our guidelines and polies about this topic, I don't belive this surpasses our notability guidelines. (tJosve05a (c) 06:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The sources cited are not reliable and there is not enough third-party coverage to meet the General notability guideline. - tucoxn\talk 06:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Canvassed Perhaps there could be reason to keep this article, but I'm not yet seeing it. What I do see is very little actual content spread into many subsections, which is definitely not warranted. The biggest argument I could see for deletion is that the citations are very weak. There are a couple decent ones, but at least two (teknolojioku.com and haberimport.com) are clearly just press releases, as they are identical content. Like many others, I don't believe it passes notability yet. Jory (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to draft space - Despite the article have 2 reliable sources, it is not enough to meet the "receive significant coverage" criteria. However, I believed that if the page creator work hard enough and find more reliable sources for it, the article will be ready some day. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep 2 reliable sources fulfill the actual requirement of notability, it is debatable what to keep or not. Delibzr (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (I wasn't canvassed :) ) - I agree completely with Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources and find that amount of sourcing puts it right on the edge of notability. Additionally, I am inclined to error on the side of keep due to the game's large user base (as reported in Silicon Era, a reliable source). Yes, popularity is not a notability criteria, but when if tough cases we can employ common sense to decide which side to land on, and common sense says a popular game should be notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
WPVG rated Siliconera as having situational reliability—it's a niche blog that we only use for English coverage of Japanese games. Of course, this is an interview, so it's somewhat in-between that and a self-published source. The three sources in question are indeed secondary, but can they be used for notability? The two main English sources are interviews unregulated by a fact-checking or editorial mechanism. czar  12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, interviews by reliable sources can contribute to notability. While not strictly secondary, they aren't strictly primary either - some level of fact-checking of things said in the interview will occur at quality publications. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (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.

April 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mike Matei[edit]

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

There was an article under this name many years ago that was deleted. Assuming this is the same person, he has certainly become much more notable since then, but it is still not clear that notability has been established. This was suggested as a ProD and was rejected after having been endorsed by a second editor (neither of whom was me), and I feel that it should go to full AfD to settle the matter. It seems to me that WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER are not satisfied (except perhaps criterion 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER), and general notability criteria are probably not established either. It looks to me like all the references in the current article that would establish his notability apart from Cinemassacre Productions and their various "programs" are in non-notable sources. WP:TOOSOON at best. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect though I'm not sure which is the best target. The name is certainly a searchable term, but as noted, non-notable on his own and tied to Rolfe/AVGN/Cinemassacre. I just don't know which of those is the best target for this, likely Rolfe. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete He doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of notable. TEH (talk contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions (where he works and is mentioned in the lede by name) as a worthwhile search term. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—not enough to substantiate an article but redirects are cheap. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions per Masem and Czar's comments. 23W 01:23, 16 April 2015 (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.

April 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

James & Mike Mondays[edit]

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

This page was nominated for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag because I didn't think that it fit the criteria and it deserved to go to a full AfD debate. The few references provided for the article are all in non-notable sources. Personally, I think this show is non-notable outside of Cinemassacre Productions and it should perhaps just be merged in as a subsection there if it is not deleted outright. Note also that there is an (unreferenced) "List of James & Mike Mondays episodes" article as well. Also note that this has been mentioned on their website [8], so there is likely to be an influx of fans commenting here (as can currently be seen on the article's Talk page). Bueller 007 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-Non-notable Web content. Fails to provide non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article you referred to has no bearing on this page. Please provide a Wikipedia valid argument to support the deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (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. The "weak keep" opinions are weak indeed, and one of them ultimately supports deletion.  Sandstein  20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Lozenge and Hampshire[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Google doesn't bring up any third-party sources, has not been mentioned in any relevant video game news outlet. Soetermans. T / C 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep-Could use some improvement. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping? Unless WP:RS significant coverage can be found, there is nothing to improve.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since no video game sources confirm the game's existence. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm interested in Hampshire related articles but, not... this... I'm going to find some primary sources for this as this seems salvagable. Jaguar 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
What it needs is secondary source coverage (?) to show what unaffiliated sources think of the topic, not primary sources, which will, of course, always exist. czar  13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I found a somewhat descriptive entry for MobyGames for one of the series' games I know MobyGames is unreliable as it relies on user-submitted content, but that was the only decent description I could find. The game looks pretty awful for December 2000. What I don't understand is that it's a fairly contemporary game series and there are almost no sources for it. I've seen other black holes for some games on the internet but a search from the VG custom search engine finds nothing on the series. Somebody asked what happened to Lozenge and Hampshire but I can see why this is up for deletion if there are no sources. I don't think this is salvagable, so sadly I would support a deletion unless something comes up. Jaguar 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2015 (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.

April 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 keep. Consensus seems to be the contant is notable but its not so cut and dried that this needs a standalone article. I'd suggest a merge proposal would be a better vehicle then AFD to decide that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Shield Knight[edit]

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

Character is a non-notable secondary character of a single-game indie series. I suggest either deletion or redirection to Shovel Knight. Pyrotle {T/C} 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'm not seeing a lack of non-notability here - secondary sources specifically discussing the character beyond just a gameplay element is exactly what we want to see to pass the GNG. That doesn't mean we necessarily need the separate article and merging what's here to Shovel Knight would be a possible suggestion, but definitely not deletion. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, decent sources are used to describe the character's conception and reception, and integrating those (or even just the conception and creation-section) into the Shovel Knight article would make that article focus on her character in too much integrate detail. ~Mable (chat) 05:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep has 7 different secondary sources and 2 of which are reliable in the field, only source primary is the kick starter page itself but that is pretty minor in the makeup of the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shovel Knight. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The article, as written, is a series of passing mentions strung together (more on this in a moment). There are no sources of substance to add from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The character has no out-of-universe significance and is discussed as an element of gameplay. The only articles that treat the topic as its own subject are [9] and [10], both short and about the related update. The other articles are a collection of passing mentions about the character. There's certainly enough to explain the character in the parent article, but not nearly enough coverage to warrant its own article. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games . j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Asterix & Friends[edit]

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

Not Notable enough. Can't find lots of reliable sources for this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Or redirect it to Asterix or its developer Sproing Interactive Media. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WOTgreal[edit]

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

A video game engine that seems to have little notability and the article has been tagged for notability for 7 years now. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It may or may not be notable, but "not having been improved for 7 years" is not a reason for deletion -- and neither is being "defunct" DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
True that isn't a reason for a afd-but I was trying to think of something to say beyond not being notable, but yes I do agree being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Pinging Randomran who tagged this for notability and I've left a message at Wikiproject Computing. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not my area of expertise, but I was surprised there weren't more Ghits. It definitely exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A possible redirect target would be Unreal#See also, where companies like this, including WOTgreal, are listed. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only a few listings in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, none substantial. There are no worthwhile redirect targets—only other hit on WP is at UnrealScript, an unsourced listing. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  22:14, 8 April 2015 (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. North America1000 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Aryan Networks[edit]

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

Company with no evidence of notability, a Google search doesn't come up with anything either. All sources appear to be self-published. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self promotion. Huddsblue (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides no Google hits, the company was purportedly founded from scratch within the last five days so notability would be unlikely. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, with a bit of terrible branding to boot (suffice to say, "Aryan" has a bit of baggage on it in the West). Nate (chatter) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly self promotion, They can go self promote elsewhere. –Davey2010Talk 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2015 (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.

April 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Pokémon (650–720). SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar  01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Volcanion (Pokémon)[edit]

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

Non-notable, run of the mill Pokemon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing my opinion to Redirect and wondering why I didn't think of that...(embarassed). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to some "list of..." type article, whatever is out there that fits. The Wikipedia is not a Pokedex, esp for subjects that have no received direct coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the applicable list of Pokémon. Zero sources to establish notability. ~Mable (chat) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Pokémon (650–720) where it should be added as #721. Probably could have done this yourself with little fanfare before coming to AfD. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—enough for a listing but not enough to support a fully-featured article. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  18:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to console exclusivity. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

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

Sometimes, the right answer is to bite the newbie and delete the article. When the original content was seemingly written by a petulant child, the wrong answer is to try and polish it. This article is essentially a POV-fork to console exclusivity and should just be deleted and redirected.

"Paid exclusivity" is not a term used anywhere but in forums populated by gamers with no understanding of business, which is why the earliest example cited dates from only 2007. In media where the most vocal aren't petulant children, people generally understand that you have to pay for exclusivity agreements, so "paid exclusivity" is not a term used when discussing things like sports rights. No one is going to search for "paid exclusivity" to look for anything other than video games. - hahnchen 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Gene that there is some content here that could go nicely in Console exclusivity. "Paid exclusivity" when not focused on just consoles is too broad of a concept. it could contain everything from intellectual properties to tariffs. What this article is really about is Console exclusivity ( which doesn't have a section for paid exclusivity so it would make the article better for the reader ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 12 April 2015 (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.

March 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. Nakon 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WWE 2K (Mobile Game)[edit]

WWE 2K (Mobile Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "WWE 2K (Mobile Game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As an article that says nothing about this game other than its release date, price and key features it is spam. Most of it is based upon a press release published by the WWE site (as licencee, not independent), the remainder being two brief announcements in gaming websites that do not themselves appear to be notable, so notability is not established. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete. No sources to show notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge – Currently the only coverage from secondary source game websites is the press release announcement stuff. For now, I would suggest redirecting to WWE 2K per WP:TOOSOON. It might expand enough in the future to split off into a separate article again. Also this article needs renaming, "G" shouldn't be capitalised in "Game". – The1337gamer (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge - It is a notable video game. The editor just didn't use the notable source. See this one from GameSpot and VideoGamer.com. Notability is definitely established. However, its problems is that it violates copyright as the entire gameplay section is copy from WWE.com directly. Now that it is removed, I agree with The1337gamer's point. It is too soon to have the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course the original copyrighted text was re-inserted by the original author including the pricing info - removed again but I suspect it will be put back.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a crystal ball, including spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No real content beyond advert for a product yet to be released. No indication that this is notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2015 (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.

March 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wizards world[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this game, and article is little more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Could be the case that references are in Russian, but I couldn't find any. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (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.

March 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 merge to BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Nakon 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Infinite Game Publishing[edit]

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

just a publisher, but they are not the original publisher of any of the three items listed. , just a subsequent owner of the rights who no longer holds them DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Eh, I'm sympathetic because the game has plenty of mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but none of the articles are in depth about the actual company and almost all of the remaining mentions are about IGP's relation with the MechWarrior franchise. It would seem, then, that IGP would work well integrated into a larger MechWarrior series article, which does not exist. The next best spot would be the aforementioned target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (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. North America1000 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Stumbling Cat[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article was created to promote Potions: A Curious Tale, a non-notable game. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources in use are not reliable, independent sources. (?) czar  08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete failing WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. RikuKat's attempt is appreciated morally here, but a business registration (not in-depth by nature, only proves existence) and a link to a non-notable previous project by one of the founders is far from satisfying the notability requirements. It is unsurprisingly hard to establish notability when the company's only product listed in the article has still not confirmed its release date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah AirMech is okay (in notability), but still notability is not inherited just by sharing common key people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Potions: A Curious Tale[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I've been looking forward to this game, why delete the entry only to put it back when it goes live? - dennisandvicki, 02:02, 31 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisandvicki (talkcontribs)
  • Delete No references. Not enough people have heard of it. Possible self-promotion, because only the creator(s) and their friends have likely played this game. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep References exist. Credible claim of significance, has following of several hundred people. User_talk:RikuKat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Youtube, forums, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Psychotic Spartan 123 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar  08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, there's no independent coverage at all of this game. The1337gamer (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Evryware. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Space Dude[edit]

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

Non-notable, no good sourcing found. Previously kept in 2006 due to notability of developer but I'm not finding anything useful. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete when your parent article ( in this case the game developer ) is a stub, it's unlikely that the child article (the game) is going to be notable. put the content into the developer article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:50, 3 April 2015 (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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead Sea (video game)[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-Not notable, I thought this was a different game at first when I saw the deletion (don't know which I was thinking of) and was going to say keep but this is not it. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Tech in Asia's editorial policy says that every article is run past an editor, though they also want to break stories within minutes, so it's unclear what degree of oversight is had. I'd say it's gray in the reliability department, but I'm leaning towards okay since their work is cited by their video game reporting peers. The rest are more clear-cut: compgamer appears to have a print presence but I can't find mention of it in English video game reliable sources, coregamerth appears amateur, and Juropy doesn't have an editorial policy. I still don't see enough to qualify a dedicated article for this topic. czar  08:50, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph and Melissa Batten[edit]

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

Non-notable domestic violence (murder-suicide) case involving non-notable persons. No significant coverage beyond local news, no legal precedents. Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. I also find it bizarre that the murderer and his victim are given a joint biography. - hahnchen 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep or move back to Draft. Most commonly, I work on articles about and related to games. So when I found this interesting story, I was floored. Is it notable to have a murder within the gaming industry? I don't know, but I have never heard of a game designer killing another game designer. The Battens themselves may or may not be notable, but they have both worked on some pretty notable projects. I did not think that separate articles, or even an article on either individual, made much sense so I wrote one for both. The murder itself seems to have plenty of coverage, both from the local news and sources like Fortune, Kotaku and The Escapist, as well as the print source Designers & Dragons (which describes the crime as "one of the more shocking events in RPG's history") where I first learned of this case. There were a bunch of blogs on my Google search, which I did not use, and I did not know if I should use Whatifgaming even though it had an interview from her work on Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This article in its current state is not my best work, I will grant you that, but I have never started an article on a crime before. I first posted to the WP:VG talk page for advice, and got responses from GamerPro64, Jeraphine Gryphon, Izno, Czar, 1bandsaw, Fakedeeps, and Salvidrim!, some of whom also did some minor edits to the article. I could solve the "bizarre" joint biography by splitting them into two sections, but I was not sure if that was necessary. I was also unsure of what the article's name should be, so that could be changed by anyone with a better idea than me. I was also unsure of what exactly to do with the lead. BOZ (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the sources appear to me to be more than just local news. 1bandsaw (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing remarkable about this incident. Husband kills wife then tops self. Happens somewhere every day. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BOZ. The article's title and content can be adjusted, but the event/people have been covered by different reliable sources so there's enough content to base an article on. Also I found these additional sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?_r=0 and http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26163179.html (Komo News) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've filled in the bare-url refs, does it look more solid now? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it could make a wikinews article since it is news, but the point of an encyclopedia is that you take a ton of different sources and compile them to create an encyclopedic narrative. Someone Googling this will get the same story from Wikipedia or any news article, I don't think the topic is broad enough that combining multiple sources will create anything more than is already there. Wikinews yes, Wikipedia I don't think so. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The coverage is a bit light, but it's still there. The crime was highlighted by The New York Times in an article about murder-suicides related to domestic violence, and they specifically mentioned that it "made headlines". This seems to be an implicit statement of notability on their part. I can see how people would argue that it's perhaps more applicable to Wikinews, but I think it squeaks by the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with opening (hahnch). Notability is questionable here; but the point is that victims of this domestic violence and their lives were not so domestic. Again, agree over joint biography goof - titles and POV should be different. However, if the event has been covered by significant sources and had notable impact on relevant communities - it might be legible as article. I recommend search and presentation of sources noting enduring effects; or incorporation of information into appropriate (possibly to be created) article, timeline or list. Fakedeeps (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - covers barely WP:CRIME and WP:GNG but still it is within the treshold for inclusion. That is my view.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The situation was highlighted by the NYtimes as a case where gun control laws overshadow rights of victims of domestic victims (in 2013), and was cited by a WA state legislator in the passage of a 2014 state gun control law that involved domestic violence [18]. (in addition to the above aspects). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominator comment - Despite the NYTimes and Fortune sources above, I'm reiterating my stance in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'd expect significantly more coverage of a news event for it to be considered in an encyclopedia, I'd expect national sources to dedicate articles to the crime, not have a few paragraph on it half-way down on a page filled with other murders. Had it been a cultural object, such as a video game, we'd expect previews, reviews and interviews in national-level publications - we have none of this here. - hahnchen 21:54, 31 March 2015 (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.

March 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)[edit]

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Apparently minor clone of last year's 2048 (video game), released a few days ago. The first version of the article was full of bold claims ("described by the Wall Street Journal as 'almost like Candy Crush for math geeks'") which actually applied to the original 2014 game, while studiously avoiding any mention of it. Minus those claims, we have that it might have featured in the second-place entry in a programming forum competition (unless that's also talking about the original yes, it looks like that was just lifted from the original 2048 article as well). Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's just one of hundreds of unremarkable clones of 2048, and doesn't even have a single secondary source. --McGeddon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Shit sorry assumed this was a "special edition" .. Haden't realized it was just a clone, DERP I'm losing the plot I think!, Anyway we don't need articles on every single clone of a game, I can't find bugger all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ugh. There are countless forks of the game. Probably hundreds referred to as 'galaxy edition' alone. ― Padenton |  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |  06:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |  06:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not even sure if a redirect is needed. 2048/Threes are one of those overly cloned games on the cheap. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would normally recommend merge for these sorts of things, but a merge would not be worthwhile as there is not a single source in a WP:VG/RS search to confirm even the most trivial of noteworthy relations to the full game. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Clearly fails WP:GNG, no content to merge and no reason to redirect to 2048. It's just one of hundreds of clones. – The1337gamer (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable clone. A notable original doesn't give inherited notability, and as many above has shown there is next to no grounds to stand on itself too. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:02, 26 March 2015 (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.

March 22 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

MaiMai[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently the article's subject is notable, and there are now a couple of sources. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Before all please fix the capitalization (full small letters) and please never start separate articles for each of the "sequels" which are in fact just version updates (i.e. just redirect maimai Plus/maimai Green/maimai Green Plus/maimai Orange). Refer to zh:maimai for the horde of sources, thank you (ja:maimai has too much cruft), more prominently [19][20][21]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Over seventy footnotes in zh:MaiMai. It has been nominated and listed at Chinese wikipedia's WP:DYK. Antigng (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Which of those 70 footnotes are reliable? Does the zhwp's DYK process include source vetting? Otherwise I don't see why those arguments are pertinent. czar  01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Two hits from WP:VG/RS: [22], [23]. Not sure if [24] is more than a press release, but it's reliable. Imagine there's plenty more in Japanese sources here. czar  01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    That appears to be 4Gamer's own report at a SEGA trade show. IIRC 4Gamer put a red notice at the top for full PR reposts (like this one), and a grey frame around the repost parts if they supply their own lead (like this one). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:27, 23 March 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterball (video game)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of current condition, burden is on the nominator to look for sources before coming to AfD. Indeed there's nothing on the Raptisoft game, but there's enough on the TikGames game—reviews in three major video game publications: IGN, Eurogamer, and Play (UK magazine) (see the Metacritic listing). So we're looking at repurposing and dropping the disambig after this closes. Those reviews are enough, but there are a few other small articles in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 12:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Little Eggy That Could[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this video game. bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are user-editable sites and company PR, not WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (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.

March 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. "What's the harm if kept" isn't an accepted argument here. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Middleton[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO with only reliable source being the BBC article. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 201reser 5 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't know what GNG/NBIO are, but what is the harm if this article is preserved? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, the acronyms refer to Wikipedia's General notability guideline and Notability (people). I suggest you read them carefully. They are the basis on which it will be decided whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "What is the harm?" is one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: In real life I know not to drive on the wrong side of the street without having to read reams text. Your miles may vary, but in my book any policies/guidelines that take weeks to fully understand cannot be effectively enforced.
Also, just because someone does not know all the acronyms used at Wikipeida by heart does not make them less worthy of an opinion. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit, it takes some time to learn the rules/policies of the website, and I typically recommend that editors/nominators link to them in their comments so people can read up on what they're trying to say, but that being said, you not knowing them isn't really a good rationale or defense for your stance either. That's like threatening to sue someone, and when they ask you what law they broke, and you saying "Well, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't typically need to be in my daily life." I don't mean to be mean here, but you're they one who made the initial statement without the prior knowledge here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
While other commenters have provided more compelling deletion reasons, I am inclined to reprimand User:Konveyor Belt for pulling WP:JUSTAPOLICY and hope he does better next time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is an absence of significant, in-depth biographical coverage in reliable sources. The current source is a three-sentence item in the BBC local news for Northampton. (Middleton comes from there.) The claim to have won a Kids' Choice Award is spurious and I have removed it from the article. The game he makes his own YouTube videos about, Minecraft, was nominated 3 times, but so far has not won, and in any case, the notability of the game does not confer notability on a person who makes videos about it. There is also an interview in The Big Issue here and a brief mention of his videos in an article about the game itself and several others who make videos about it on Tech Times here + some press-released based notices about his signing a deal with Maker Studios, a company which produces YouTube videos. Not enough for a stand-alone article in my view. What little verifiable information about him is available can be merged into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lake of notability. Agree with suggestion to merge a brief mention into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge as suggested above. The harm is that people will begin to treat Wikipedia as a web-host for putting everybody and everything trivial they know on our servers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is more harm than good being done here. This will set a dangerous president. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Coming via WT:VG is my quick addition of sources I see and absence of a vote. It has to be said though, that I have not heard of this person before in my personal YouTube experience. [25] from The Guardian regarding his standalone app. And is TubeFilter still considered unreliable? Their stats puts Middleton in 4th among gaming channels one time. [26] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Agree with others saying delete. DangerousJXD (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Possibly reliable sources offering significant coverage of him: The Guardian, StreamDaily, Common Sense Media, TubeFilter. Tezero (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldnt call the CSM one significant. It's a few sentences on a top ten list. It's literally 1/10th of an article about him ... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 28 March 2015 (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.

March 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Skull & Crossbones[edit]

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

Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. 1980s video games often are more thoroughly sources in print media than in content currently searchable online. The reliability of the International Arcade Museum's Killer List of Video Games is debatable, but this has an entry there. This German-language book mentions it at least briefly, as does this Russian book about video game sound effects. I'm not really qualified to evaluate either work. Beyond that, additional coverage in Coin Slot Magazine (for the arcade version) and any of several periodicals covering NES gaming seems plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI, KLOV is a reliable source per WP:VG/S. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I fixed the mobygames link to the page, added the arcade cabinet manual (on archive.org), and I was able to find a few sources of varying quality online if someone would like to put it into the page: Reviews: [27][28] [29] [30] Other stuff: [31] Padenton|   01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Source reliability check—Source 1, Atari Times, is patently unreliable, user-submitted. Source 2, The Video Game Critic, is self-published and has been deemed unreliable. Source 3, Honestgamers, is similarly part-time and has no fact-checking editorial policy. Source 4 is an official listing for a print magazine, so okay. And Source 5, a Gamasutra feature, is of course okay, though the subject only has a blurb. czar  04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep-I actually use to own a copy I found but since it didn't work...anyway it is notable even if obscure. Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harder to find sources for games of this age, but there are plenty of reviews (via Amiga mag rack) for the C64/Amiga ports of the game. More than enough there in those print sources to suffice for the general notability guideline and to build suitable gameplay and reception sections. czar  04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Humble Bundles[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - sorry, but I'm not buying the arguments here. The fact it has "significantly more information than the article" is a bad thing, because there is way too much detail here. The page is enormous, many of the games aren't notable, the article itself is woefully sourced, and WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTCRUFT seem to come into play. I see no value whatsoever in having a generic list of every Humble Bundle ever. What next? A list of every Steam Sale ever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Masem. While there are some definite problems with the list as-is, I think we need to come to a conclusion on how to incorporate the noteworthy discussion of early humble bundles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lukeno94. Given the frequency of humble bundles, I just don't see this list being maintainable and a lot of these bundles aren't noteworthy. Any bundle that received significant coverage can be be covered in the Humble Bundle article. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy. I recognize the delete !votes and their arguments but I think it would be a shame to full-on delete the article. There may also be a more maintainable version (I'm skeptical) that someone light bulbs on if it is kept. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    What good would userfying this do? Also, how would any form of this list be valid? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    There's some information that should be reflected back into the main article if this is deleted - obviously not the whole list, but, for example, the first 10-some numbered bundles, that were bringing in millions in revenue, could be documented as example of the success. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Isn't the pretty easy retort to the first question WP:USERFY (c.f. the last sentence of the first paragraph)? Besides, you wouldn't be able to stop him from asking an admin to userfy it for him should the decision here be to delete the article, anyway. My !vote just skips that (WP:BURO) step.

    Maybe Masem finds some way to strip down the list such that it becomes maintainable while also passing WP:NOT, which is the only policy that I can conceive of the article today failing.

    An alternative location might be the Draft namespace. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article does serve a distinct purspose compared to the parent. I agree that the article has way too much information on it, though. It may be sufficient to remove the list of games from each bundle? That should still give a good overview of the salient data points without overloading the reader. Alexbrainbox (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That entire argument falls apart when you consider that they shouldn't be included in full in the main article, as most of the bundles are entirely non-notable. Routine coverage of a bundle is, well, routine, and doesn't constitute notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Would we have an exhaustive list of every Steam sale? No, no we wouldn't. This is exactly the same as that would be, just on a bigger scale. The fact that this would be insanely excessive detail in the main article does NOT justify the existence of this list. HBs, for the most part, have been extremely regular for a long time; this list does not serve any real purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t)
  • OK so you're saying the article may need trimming due to technical or other reasons? That I can accept. However, this is an AfD: what is being debated is the existence of the article. So the size is not directly relevant to this discussion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Look indiscriminate according to Wiktionary "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." How can a very precise list, carefully and exactly constructed, with no margin for argument, be indiscriminate? I'm convinced you're using the wrong word. Maybe you mean "I find it uninteresting"? In no way is it indiscriminate. However, I feel I might be wasting my time arguing this point any further. But please look at some dictionaries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK so Masem thinks there is too much detail, and The1337gamer thinks there is too little, I think it's about right. Where is the correct place to discuss this? On the article talk page. Not at AfD really, lets not count chickens until they're hatched. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [32]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well they ought to be. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Common sense means that we give them proper things to read, not a messy list that manages to be overly detailed and incomplete at the same time. Page views are meaningless; a page on SkyDoesMinecraft would get a huge amount of views, and yet he doesn't meet notability guidelines/doesn't have an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (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.

March 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy delete WP:G12: copyvio from http://apkmanager.com/apk/rs.ignite.lighton czar  20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

LightON ~ enlight the enigma[edit]

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

Non-notable game; fails WP:GNG; very little coverage. Game developer has no article, so merging isn't an option. Esquivalience t 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the page about lightON game to improve it's visibility in the web search. The content that I included is basic, but currently there's not much more to include. I hope the game will become notable some day, so let's give it a chance. Amilosavljevic77 07:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as promotional, as stated above. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the entire text of the body is a copyvio from [33] --PresN 18:38, 17 March 2015 (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.

March 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Star Fox cast members[edit]

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

Fails notability by itself, voice actors for notable characters are already mentioned at List of Star Fox characters. Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-now listed I love Star Fox, but I can't say I've ever kept track of who the cast members are. (Only a few video games would need this list, heck Mario does not even have one!) Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant to the other list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Video game trivia out of scope for the encyclopedia (not an indiscriminate list). Better suited for Wikia. czar  12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - If this needs to be documented, it would belong at the character list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no need for this list. Any relevant info on the cast can be mentioned on the character page.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (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.

March 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Valley2city 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jocuri-unity3d.com[edit]

Jocuri-unity3d.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jocuri-unity3d.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Promotional article about a non-notable web. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Should have been speedied a LONG time ago. smileguy91Need to talk? 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (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.

March 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. JodyB talk 13:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Valhalla Game Studios[edit]

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

This should have been speedily deleted for no indication of significance. However an IP (likely just the original author logged out) contested the speedy for the following reason: 218 results on google news in English, 303 results in Japanese . 60 employees according to the official website. As we know, that statement isn't enough to establish WP:N, but technically since it was contested by "another user" we will have to go through AfD. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that the subject of this article satisfies the basic notability criteria. Notability is not inherited by one of its employees being independently notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree they don't inherit notability from their notable co-founder, but they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with regard to their development of Devil's Third which was missing from the article. I've added that to the article along with instances of significant coverage. Sure, much of that still relates to the co-founder's previous work but the company has confirmed contracts with Nintendo and their game was announced at E3 last year. There's probably enough there for me, but I totally understand the nomination here. Stlwart111 08:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for giving us some additional background info, while this company may become notable, I still think this isWP:TOOSOON, what we have is a fledgling company with some notable people trying to release a quality video game. However, to date they have failed to release a single game, and they also failed to release Devil's Third for PS3 and XBOX 360 as originally planned and have now scaled it back to a Nintendo only release, which may more may not come to fruition, and even if it is released may could just be a flop. That being said, the only thing going here is that there does appear to be some coverage in reliable sources, but is it enough to be considered extensive? -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it was founded in 2009, so it's hardly a "fledgling company". Ha ha. Yes, the plan was to release it for PS3 and Xbox 360 but they didn't "fail" at that attempt - partner company THQ (the PS3/Xbox link) went belly-up and Valhalla went to Nintendo who signed them that day, after a single meeting, sight-unseen. But you're right - none of that really matters - the issue is whether reliable sources have given the company significant coverage. I think they have, but I won't hold anyone's feet to the fire. Stlwart111 05:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the game without a doubt has more than enough coverage, the problem is does the company? Try finding a single source about Valhalla that isn't just talking about the release of that game with a mention as to Valhalla as the creator. I guess I could see the argument that at this time, that game is what defines the company and any source talking about the game could also be considered "extensive coverage" for the studio, I guess I'm on the fence about it now. I'll wait and see what others have to say that might sway me one direction or the other, but my mind is more open to keeping this article than it was before. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Very reasonable of you; your analysis is pretty spot on. Stlwart111 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm the person who reinstated the article and I'm not the author of the original article. Nice insinuating there though - if you know you're on unsteady grounds, focus less on facts and instead attempt smear tacticts. The fact that Valhalla have been around for 6 years and have received a lot of coverage in both Japanese and English tells me they are bigger than their founder. They/their games have been mentionde in Famitsu a bunch of times, I get 76 googits for site:famitsu.com "ヴァルハラゲームスタジオ". To claim they're not notable seems ridiculous.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 126.59.94.184 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There's a misunderstanding here, btw. I didn't contend the speedy deletion, I restored an old version of the page which had a "speedy deletion" tag (and was subsequently made a redirect to one of the foudners). When I realized I had included the tag by mistake, I made a 2nd edit to remove it.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 126.59.94.184 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
First of all I said "likely the original author" not "definitely the original author." There's a big difference, and anyone looking at the edit history can see why I might reasonably suspect that. Second, I would be more inclined to believe you if multiple socks hadn't already edited the page and caused an admin to semi-protect it, and then the first IP (you) to edit the article after the protection expired reverts the community consensus redirect and puts back all the old info that was repeatedly nominated for speedy/changed into a redirect by several other editors and admins. Finally, your first contributions to Wikipedia were to undo a redirect, and include and edit summary on Valhalla Game Studios? Obviously this is not the first time you've edited on Wikipedia. So instead of continued edit warring in the article that has happened historically I brought it to AfD where a conclusive consensus could be reached by the community, there is no reason for you to take offense to it. If you bothered to read the previous comments in the AfD you would see that I have changed my view and think they article may be worth keeping. Although I still have some WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON concerns, either way, there is no reason for you to come here and attack my nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's enough coverage to justify an article, as several aspects of the company have been covered by many sources. (Itagaki's leaving his prior company to start this one up, the problems with THQ's closure, Nintendo working with the company to save one of its projects, etc. The company may not have any game output, but they've certainly been through a lot, and it's been documented by third party reliable sources. There's enough to write an article here, it just needs a lot of cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 18 March 2015 (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.

March 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rally-Sport MS-DOS[edit]

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

WP:Notability, not covered by enough reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, hopeless stub. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There maybe some old computer mags that reviewed this game that might give it some notability. However if this game had any lasting significance you would think there would be a least some sources online beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sex Games[edit]

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

WP:Notability. Only told readers that the game exists and didn't add any information about the game's notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:GNG--I was unable to find reliable sources for this video game. It also does not meet more specific guidelines such as WP:WEB and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Shanata (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Qing Lian Zhan Shi[edit]

Qing Lian Zhan Shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Qing Lian Zhan Shi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "清廉战士" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

WP:Notability. Not covered by any reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Looking around for other sources "Honest and Upright Warrior" and "Qinglian Zhanshi" also turn up some results, but still not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename "Incorruptible Warrior", its English title (after the AfD ends). A sampling from LexisNexis:
  • "China puts faith in video game to spread anti-corruption message." The Irish Times. August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Cyberspace opens new front in war on graft." South China Morning Post. August 1, 2007 Wednesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese whistleblowers rush to expose corruption." The Irish Times. December 20, 2007 Thursday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese hunt corrupt officials - by computer." The Daily Telegraph (LONDON). August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "China's first anti-corruption online game shut down after less than a month." BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring. August 28, 2007 Tuesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
which are all about the game, in depth. Ping me if you need to see them as a PDF. There are more sources on LexisNexis, too. This also doesn't include the WSJ and Reuters articles currently referenced in the WP article:
All in all, should be more than enough to establish notability and to write a sizable article. czar  15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki is sourced.Antigng (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2015 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wispin[edit]

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

WP:Notability, does not receive coverage from reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar  15:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Six reviews on Metacritic. I'd say that anything that gets that much attention on Metacritic is notable. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Metacritic actually does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar  13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge/Move Would make alot more sense to start an article on the developer, Grumpyface Studios and have this be a section of it. This current one could redirect there then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This game has enough sources to meet the general notability guideline and warrant its own article separate from the developer (which appears to only have passing mentions in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search). This is to say that this game is more notable than its developers. czar  18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Game has only passing mentions at the references listed and a few reviews. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Three reviews from WP:VG/RS vetted sources (as mentioned above) have been the precedent for sufficiency. czar  18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

XSquare[edit]

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

WP:Notability, not covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (for any version of the app, including "Kids" and "Infinity"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  15:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't see anything, either. As far as I can tell, it hasn't gotten any professional reviews in reliable sources. Google results seem to consist nothing but spammy download sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Zombie Carnaval[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, not covered by reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete A quick news search brings up some sources of which it's the main topic, but I don't believe that there's significant coverage and thus it fails WP:GNG. Pishcal 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer, Slide to Play, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar  15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eight reviews on Metacritic. That basically means notability is assured. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but it's worth noting that Metacritic does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar  13:29, 13 March 2015 (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mango Plumo[edit]

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

Not notable and don't have any "significant" coverage. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (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.

March 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Pokémon#Fan community . Overall, there is consensus that Bulbapedia is not notable enough for an article. A selective merge has already been performed and there is a rough consensus to redirect/merge to that location anyways. As such, I'll redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulbapedia[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this website. Almost entirely sourced by the website itself. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I apologize for the mess earlier which I've now fixed - Technically "3" is incorrect as it should be "3rd nomination" but the prev AFD was in 2005 hence prev being "2" and I'd rather not flaff around with historical stuff like that so figured it was best I name this 3. Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hey thanks, I was a little confused when I saw three previous nominations up here, but nothing on the talk page. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • You're welcome :), I assume no one used the closing tool in 2005 so I'd say they probably forgot to add the closes, Meh who knows Face-grin.svg, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • At first glance, it looks like there are 2-3 valid sources, but one is a book and the others are dead links... ansh666 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Konveyor Belt: Not saying if they're good or bad, just that I can't access any of them to assess whether they are actually reliable and not trivial/passing mentions. ansh666 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pokémon#Fan_sites (and that could probably be forked, as Pokémon is a quite lengthy article). Pax 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Site gets a fairly large number of Google news mentions, but I haven't reviewed them to decide one way or another on notability yet. Pinging @Lugia2453: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G4 Delete - this has been sent to AfD and declined at DRV so many times, a new creation really has to overwhelmingly show notability for the word go. There are news hits but after looking at several like this, they seem to just mention Bulbapedia as a source or a brief mention, with not much about the site at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This version of the article is significantly different from the versions that were deleted by VfD (yes, Votes for Deletion) in 2005. Every other version was speedy deleted, so G4 does not apply in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with that, but the DRVs in 2009, 2010, 2011 said "endorse the delete" every time. Still, I'm no grumpy deletionist, if somebody can improve the article and prove me to be completely and utterly wrong, that would be great! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Remember that DRV isn't AfD - it's for contesting the procedure of a close, not the outcome of a close. Every time, nobody found anything wrong with the process to overturn it, nor did anyone provide any new reliable sources (though one guy tried really really hard, apparently). Either way, DRV refers back to the old article which was deleted (yes, in 2005, a lot has changed since then), so is irrelevant here. ansh666 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm happy to downgrade to a straight "delete" ... but I can't go any further than that. I've dug into book sources and the best I can muster is things like this which is a one-sentence mention in a self-published source. That's just not enough to save the article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pokémon#Fan_sites, where a sentence or two should be added on the topic. (I'll look into that.) It's mentioned in passing in several sources as a definitive reference for the series, but it doesn't have any kind of dedicated coverage so as to warrant its own article. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and there's a worthwhile redirect target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A merge to Pokémon#Fan community (Section was renamed) seems to be a good solution. I would imagine one short paragraph could be reliably sourced and not be undue weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB, for what it's worth, I've already added any source I thought was worth merging (comes to about a sentence rather than a paragraph). czar  16:33, 11 March 2015 (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.

March 7 (AfD,