Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

viewtalkeditchanges

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

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

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

Contents

February 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Seanbaby[edit]

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

Non-notable writer/personality; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR / WP:ENT. Previous 2006 AFD is amusing to read- editors (really, fans) claimed notability due to his minor writing/TV appearances, not citing significant coverage or policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 26 February 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) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seanbaby is (or, at least, was) one of the more popular Internet-based comedy writers. For example, in this interview, Patton Oswalt cites Seanbaby as one of his favorite writers. His video game Calculords got significant coverage, according to a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. But I don't see too much for him personally in a cursory search for sources. I'll do more searches later. It would surprise me if he were non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wow, the nom was right: what a bullshit lot of Keeps in the last AfD, which threw up a whole lot of "This guy is so important on the interwebz!!!" without bothering with so much as one shred of proof of it. And that's the issue here. I'm seeing a number of sources quoting or citing him, but not a single one that discusses him, and as the relevant guidelines explicitly state, a quote from a subject can't be used to support the notability of the subject. Come up with some interviews or articles in reliable sources about Seanbaby, and I'm happy to change my mind. Nha Trang Allons! 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I've got these two: [1] and [2]. Not sure how good they are. I guess I'll look more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

OrangeBlock[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Article was tagged as A7, however A7 does not apply to products or services. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence provided or to be found to support notability. There may be a reason for this: article claims that it "has over 100 downloads". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete A WP:SPA article by User:Iancthompson on a game developed by one Ian Thompson. There appear to have been other similarly named games; I am seeing no evidence that this iOS game is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Odd that CSD criteria are so specific, that there is a criteria for musical recordings, but not paintings, or books; one for companies, but not products. Either way, this fails GNG given no coverage and only ~ 100 downloads?! --Gaff (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Vision Valor Victory Gaming[edit]

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

Many of the articles linked to are no longer valid, this page has only been updated several times in over a year and a half, visiting the website shows they only have one active team in the game Fifa. Team has only 1 Lan accomplishment in the last 2 years and several since 2012. All of the collaborations section links to articles that are not valid. AcePuppy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems some of its members sometimes contribute to a "geek themed" blog, but that's them writing, not articles covering them, that doesn't help their case for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 26 February 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) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. — Joaquin008 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander (journalist)[edit]

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

While there is a large body of work from the subject, coverage about her by reliable secondary sources is self-generated to near non-existent. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:00, 15 February 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) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the subject of dedicated works, but an easy pass of WP:JOURNALIST #1—widely cited either for her reporting or as an authority in gaming:
czar  01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Czar's sources, plus one more - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/07/in-praise-of-leigh-alexander-gamergate-video-games-sexism-bullying - Nomination is a terrible failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with all of those (except the Guardian one) is that they're circular. Of course the subject is popular in gaming blogs, which by definition are not independent of her. I did not overlook those, I looked for more material similar to the Guardian article. Unfortunately I didn't find any. This is the same problem where startups are "notable" because they're mentioned in Valleywag and TechCrunch. None of those are independent of the subjects, and the situation is the same here. Compare to other tech journalists who are actually notable outside of their scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours walled garden environment. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And niche, tabletop RPGs will be notable when covered in niche, tabletop RPG publications. (More like the argument's circular.) Video game journalists (in vetted publications) refer to the author as an authority. This isn't a GNG argument—that lots of people have discussed her in depth—but a creative professional argument—that she is widely seen to be a figure in the field. Her work is quoted somewhere in every major publication that ever covers games as a cursory issue. Nothing else to add on this topic. czar  13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. The available sources suggest that the person is regarded as an important figure by peers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 16 February 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.

February 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Day One: Garry's Incident. czar  13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wild Games Studio[edit]

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

The organization existed for four years, made $7 million in revenues and had about 11-50 employees[3]. The only thing they are notable for is the Day One: Garry's Incident, which has its own article and the only purpose of this page is to summarize that one (a purpose already well-served by the Lede). The org does not appear to have done anything else of significance that could produce a general profile separate from the controversy page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 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) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Day One: Garry's Incident. All coverage I found was related to that game and can be adequately summarised at that article. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Given as it is defunct know, I agree it's unlikely to become known for anything but this one controversy, which is probably better discussed in the game's article, if it isn't already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 15 February 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.

February 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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Polycount[edit]

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

Promotioanl and non-notable -- see inforbox DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the article some, doing partnered contests with the 1st and 3rd most played online PC games seems noteworthy to me. [1] Polypunk (talk) 20:44, 11 February 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) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the following sources: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep another lazy and unhelpful AfD rationale, I'm afraid. I suppose the comment refers to the (non-removed) mission statement in the infobox - hardly a sufficient reason for deletion. The RS coverage clearly exists: a simple Google news search reveals 286 hits for "Polycount art" and 320 for "Polycount forum". A lot are incidental mentions, but the mere fact that RS have referred their readers to something on the site hundreds of time is far from meaningless - non-notable websites are not routinely referenced in RS. The in depth coverage of the site and/or its contests found in some of those RS (such as thus links provided by Sam Walton) prove notability beyond a doubt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Shacknews, Kotaku, and PCGamer are all good, but the other sources are either first-party or unreliable. In addition, I found another PCGamer source (only this one simply talks about the Polycount Pack, never mentioning the group specifically), this from Gamasutra (some good information on the success of their mods for TF2), and this from Russian IGN (I doubt it's got anything in there, the DuckDuckGo description used "MessageBoard" in it, but if anyone knows Russian, it'd be great to know for sure). With the three aforementioned good sources in the article, we have a solid history of the project, an editorial about fan-made League of Legends art that says that Polycount was part of hosting the contest, and an article about how much was paid to the creators of the Polycount Pack. Definitely enough to work with, even though there's a lot of stuff cited to unreliable sites. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: A news search reveals multiple mentions of the site, including several in PC Gamer magazine. I am genuinely shocked that such a well respected editor and admin with a strong track record as DGG would file a confusing AfD with several typos which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I am concerned his account might have been compromised. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 17 February 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) ansh666 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: the close was challenged by the nominator; I've given my full rationale here. ansh666 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015[edit]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that it has also been nominated by the creator for Did You Know here. If the nomination is successful, and the article is not deleted in the meantime, it will appear on the front page but without an image as fair use images are not allowed in DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Making no comment on the respective merits of this AfD, an article can not appear on DYK while an AfD is in progress. Harrias talk 12:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Game has caused uproar noted by a major Indonesian newspaper '''tAD''' (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: This means the game has coverage in sources broader than simply games review sites, putting it more notable than many console games which are only covered on review sites '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not delete for a while. Wait a week or so. It is likely to be mentioned very soon in other sources than Vice, and not only as a meme... Zezen (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. This thing already has sufficient (international) coverage for an article now, and based on how extremely over the top it is, that fame is very unlikely to fade completely. Or to put it more directly: this stupid software is probably going to make further news by actually costing lives. (I am afraid it's also likely to play into the hands of religious fundamentalists because rejection of this is one thing that basically all Muslims -- and also all serious Christians -- can agree on. But that's not relevant for whether Wikipedia should report on it. After all, Wikipedia also has articles on criminals.) But to reiterate: The notability is already there. I am just arguing why this will probably not be seen differently in retrospect 10 years from now.
    Now the images are a different matter. Not every article needs an illustration, and there is precedent for censorship for purely practical concerns such as endangering lives or just extreme indecency or sheer stupidity. Example: I once happened to be around when someone uploaded a detailed photo of a woman producing a turd. Taken from below. Removing that without discussion was in a way censorship, but was absolutely necessary and totally uncontroversial. I think the images on this article have a similar status. While nobody should feel revolted just for seeing a normal body function from an unusual perspective, this just doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. The typical reaction by Muslims, including the nice, normal and tolerant majority, but also by many other adherents of monotheistic religions will be similar. As an atheist I don't feel like that, but respecting it is still the right thing to do and is basically on the same level as not urinating in churches.
    I uninstalled or forgot how to use the scripts necessary to properly propose something for deletion, and I am not going to try doing this by hand. But I suggest that someone should propose the images for deletion. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's an image of a work — the same as Piss Christ or KKK posters or Nazi propaganda. A user who accesses this article would expect to see such an image, it's in its only acceptable place. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's the only place where we even have to argue about the images, but even here they're not needed. The other things you mention have way higher notability and cultural/historical significance -- so far. (They are also each individual artifacts in a way that screenshots are not, although the entire piece of software is.) Hans Adler 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sam Walton asked for the sources that establish notability. Though some people don't like it, it's well established that notability is not related to the language in which the source is published. E.g., what is notable in Albania and in Albanian, is a priori notable for the English Wikipedia. One of the sources currently on the article is in the game review section of es:eldiario.es, an online newspaper in Spain. Another is in the global news section of the online edition of Republika, an Indonesian newspaper with a primarily Muslim readership. Yet another is in Vice, a Canadian magazine. (Fortunately the other established newspapers and magazines available online appear to be too responsible to report about this -- nothing good will come of it.) The remaining sources seem to be the typical mix of internet resources. Although this is only indirectly relevant, two of them have sufficient notability to have their own articles in either English+German or Spanish+Catalan: gulli.com and es:MeriStation. Hans Adler 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, this game is garnering a lot of attention and I've seen a few reliable sources already mention it, more sources will probably come in too. Kymako (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment To the above keep voters: Can you provide some of the sources which establish notability? There are only three in the article currently and a google search isn't showing up any more. I suspect this may generate some coverage within the week so I'll refrain from voting right now, but without more than there currently is I'll be voting delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's predictable that if the article is deleted at this stage, it will be recreated when the game receives more attention and a backlash is provoked. Maybe the article should be transferred to user space for a time? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:N with the 3 instances of coverage noted. Wikipedia is a listing of every offensive creation that gets discussed by 3 writers. Edison (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Userify The article should be transferred to user space for the time being, per my reasoning given above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Like Zezen said above, I think it's a bit too early to tell whether it should get the boot. I'd give it a little more time before making a final decision. lurkaccount (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia should not keep articles in anticipation of future notability (especially when the existence of an article can affect the topic's future notability). At the time of article creation, and at the moment (coverage by Vice and two other blogs, and article in Indonesian paper), it does not meet notability standards. Magedq (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Eh...while I would agree with this in most cases, I don't know if it really applies here, or at least I don't think it should. This sort of seems like something that's being captured mid-exposion, like you just know it's going to turn into something bigger than it has already become in almost no time flat.
      Then again WP has never been that good at documenting current event-type stuff such as this...maybe it should be put on hold, idk. lurkaccount (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem is how much Wikipedia will contribute to this becoming notable. A lot of sources might only write on this that the information, instead of being scattered over random blogs, and papers in other languages, is instead on Wikipedia - with useful game play screenshots (not found in more reputable sources). Wikipedia having one of the only (English) articles on this game, is currently playing an active role in the development of this topic.Magedq (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Vice magazine, which is in English, and the Indonesian newspaper have solved the screenshot problem intelligently by chosing a "select animal" screen from which the visual style and the offensive potential of the software become sufficiently clear because the rest is easily filled in by the imagination. If the Vice article isn't pulled, I don't share your optimism that deleting the Wikipedia article can prevent anything. Hans Adler 13:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I can see what you mean, but I don't think its presence on Wikipedia will really have that much outside influence in the long run. It's gonna spread either way. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, seeing as more reliable sources have been found and more are sure to be found in the very near future, I don't really see a need to delete the article as of right now. lurkaccount (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, coverage in reliable sources and public attention. --Dezidor (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, while the subject has some notability, it hasn't been picked up by any major news outlet, let alone a video game website. While Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, that doesn't mean we should wait for things to happen. --Soetermans. T / C 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, 'fraid due to the subject matter of the game it's unlikely to be reported on by major news outlets until something they have to report on goes down. That's one of the aspects of Wikipedia's notability policy I've always had a problem with, when Wikipedia can't report on something just because the media at large is unwilling to report on it.
      I wouldn't mind if this is deleted so long as it's allowed to be recreated when its notability is more "CRYSTAL", I just don't think it's necessary.
      Also - I personally think the coverage it has already is enough to call for an article, even if it is being under-reported. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Three days of news coverage does not demonstrate long-term notability. It's too soon for a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Coverage by Vice News, Republika, and The Epoch Times (not currently in the article, but here) is sufficient to meet GNG in my view. Regarding the gameplay image, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material. But even that aside I'm concerned that the caption contains OR. How do we know which option the player has selected? -Thibbs (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the picture makes reasonably clear what is happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is a naive question, but from the angle depicted how can you tell the difference between anal sex with a pig and vaginal sex with a pig? Might the image not even depict a neutral pre-coital condition before the player has selected anything? Wouldn't we need some (reliable) source to back up the claim that "Muhammad [is engaged in] anal sex with a pig"? It might help to establish context if we can find a RS that provides commentary on that specific non-free image. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen videos of the game. Vaginal coitus is done in the missionary position to all animals (obviously not to the men), and anal from that behind position. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion that would be better held on the article's talk page, if the article is in fact kept. The more important issue is that minor problems of this kind are not a reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
From The Almightey Drill's response my suspicions concerning WP:OR seem to have been fully justified, but FreeKnowledgeCreator makes a good point that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion based on the image's caption. In fact, let the closer take note that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion at all. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Great game. Certainly should have it's own page. It is actually a lot of fun and a turn on. There is no genuine reson to remove this page, besides the fact that some find it offensive. I find a lot of pages on Wikipedia offensive, but they need to be there to describe the world we live in. This game is part of that world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.108 (talkcontribs) 20:10, February 12, 2015
    • Hi @199.7.159.108:, please note that we're not debating whether or not it's a "great game" and the nominator doesn't say it is offensive, we're discussing whether or not it is notable enough to have its own article. If we would come to the conclusion that it isn't notable, then that actually would be a good reason to delete the article. --Soetermans. T / C 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I find Hans Adler's rationale compelling, and as Thibbs points out, this is getting international attention. Even if this has not attracted much coverage in the Western World, Wikipedia aims to have an worldwide scope, and the sources show international coverage in well known publications, even though some of those sources aren't in English. Eddymason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing to Keep, notability has been proven. Notable, reliable and verifiable sources have reported on the game. --Soetermans. T / C 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly meets GNG based on the sources in the article alone. This is a game, not a person or an event; as such, it doesn't need X days of news coverage to be considered notable. The game may be disgraceful, and the images may be questionable... but that has no relevance to the notability of the game itself, which is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep due to news coverage and inherent situational hilarity. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I noticed that it caused a fair amount of upset in Indonesia, where major newspapers published critical op-eds about it. 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talkcontribs)
  • Keep - This game has enough coverage in reliable sources. Also here is another article about the game from a Swedish online magazine.213.114.144.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith. And Also pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 18 February 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.

February 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

PRISM: Guard Shield[edit]

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

Non-notable game. A web search turns up only downloads, Amazon, and Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • comment searches for "Prism: Threat Level Red", the title of the commercial version, do turn up some results that mention this version, but not by name. Could be worth renaming and adding that info. Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 10 February 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) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Not nearly enough for an article, and no worthwhile redirect targets (dev is a redlink, likely NN[8][9]). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looking over Czar's sources, I'm not even seeing enough for a stub, it's just saying that there's an update for the game that no one expected and that it deals with the National Guard. If anyone knows Russian, this might be good, but it's only a single paragraph, so I doubt it'll tip the scales too much. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 23 February 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.

February 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. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nixie Pixel[edit]

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

After searching, I cannot find a reliable source that covers Nixie in depth at all. As it stands right now, this article fails Notability for web content. wL<speak·check> 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the refs I did add help on that matter ? Yamitatsu (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if those refs count as reliable sources, which are needed when it comes to living people. --wL<speak·check> 22:09, 16 February 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) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 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) 02:49, 16 February 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.

February 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The meatpuppetry here is no more than a minor irritation. The votes may be in favor of "delete", but policy is not: Sergecross73's analysis of the sources indicates clearly enough that there is in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and if they're on the fence, the conclusion should be keep. The comment by Pax, though apparently controversial, is worthwhile pondering as well. One more thing: Jory should stay away from this article. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jory Prum[edit]

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

Shameless autobiography of an apparently wholly non-notable sound engineer. Sourced mostly to IMDb, YouTube, various wikis, blogs and the like. No in-depth coverage whatsoever; several of the sources cited, such as the Chicago Tribune, do not mention him at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 6 February 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) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Justlettersandnumbers is shamelessly pursuing deletion of this article based entirely on it being autobiographical. The editor sent multiple warnings as I worked on substantial revisions to the old article in my sandbox (in an effort to ensure neutral tone and provide citations for all information included) and has tried to find any excuse possible to make it appear as if the citations are not of quality. If this editor's standard was applied to other people, it would prove difficult for anyone to be considered notable or for a citation to be made that referred to modern forms of media.
Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. (This concept is accepted to such a degree that books are titled using the phrase: Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art). As such, articles like the Chicago Tribune citation Justlettersandnumbers singles out are provided as verification that the film attributed to Jory Prum did indeed appear in the festival. A further citation is provided which links to the film itself, allowing anyone to see the direct connection of Jory Prum to the achievement of having his work accepted into a highly regarded film festival. Film festivals commonly refer only to the director of a film by name, not the audio engineer.
As IMDB is considered a poor source due to its self-editability, YouTube citations were provided to verify involvement on projects such as The Walking Dead: The Game and Broken Age. Jory Prum was deemed notable enough by the Nordic Game Conference to be invited two years in a row to give keynotes at the major conference on video game development. The fact that one of the projects discussed in a keynote also has won 90+ Game of the Year awards and multiple awards for the voice acting/performances (which, again, are partially attributable to the invisible art of audio engineering and dialogue production), would, in many people's eyes, make for further notability.
Another YouTube citation features Ralph Eggleston, the director of the Pixar film For the Birds, accepting the Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Feature". In his acceptance speech he personally thanks "Skywalker Sound, Jory Prum, and The Riders in the Sky for their wonderful sound work". One could argue that being personally included in the same breath with the highly-acclaimed Skywalker Sound during an Oscar acceptance speech would indicate notability.
Further, Justlettersandnumbers effectively declares all wikis and blogs to be valueless as citations. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, was cited as additional verification of involvement as part of the LucasArts sound team and projects worked on during that time. It is easy to see that the Wookieepedia article on Jory Prum both verifies this information and was created in 2009 by a user who is quite obviously not Jory Prum. The other wiki/blog cited is the fan site for "The Walking Dead" series, which conducted interviews with many members of the audio and voice team responsible for the game. The page was created by Kaffe4200 and the history of that page indicates it has not been created or edited by Jory Prum.
One of the blogs cited is an interview Jory Prum's alma mater conducted regarding his involvement with "The Walking Dead: The Game" and how his studies at CalArts influenced his work. The citation is provided both to verify involvement with the project, as well as verification of attending the California Institute of the Arts and some biographical information about his mentors and focus of study.
Additionally, several Wikipedia articles refer to Jory Prum, including the article for Grim Fandango, the classic LucasArts adventure game. The Grim Fandango article points out Jory Prum's involvement in the restoration work of that classic title and cites a long-form article at Polygon, a premier video game news website. The long-form article spends about 20% of its coverage discussing the work Jory Prum performed, which was critical to the remastered edition, released in January 2015. A YouTube video is also cited in regards to this project, during which the highly respected composer Peter McConnell praises Jory Prum's work in the restoration efforts, stating "...it was a real nail-biter because, you know, all those performances were tucked away on these tapes. But we got 'em, thanks to a guy named Jory Prum, who's a genius who lives around my area, who does...just knows everything about everything technical."
Lastly, while working on the substantial revision of the article, I made efforts to discuss the neutrality, the quality of citations, and the qualification of notability with both Justlettersandnumbers and Jimfbleak, another editor. The discussion is documented on my User_talk:Jory#February_2015. It is clear that Justlettersandnumbers is preoccupied with the autobiography aspect and uninterested in the actual content, whether it is neutral, whether the article is of value, or if notability is established. Justlettersandnumbers's only qualification for notability in this case appears to be whether someone unconnected has authored the article, and therefore Justlettersandnumbers has decided the test is failed merely due to the autobiographical involvement.
I therefore rebutt Justlettersandnumbers's assertions and ask that the article be kept.Jory (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I speedied the first draft of this, but I was asked to help improve it, and since autobiographies aren't actually forbidden, I cooperated with that request. It's worth following the talk page link above to see the discussion. I did point out that although the article was probably safe from speedy deletion it could be nominated here. Because of my involvement with this article, I don't intend to vote to keep or delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It is apparent that the Wikipedia editor fighting to delete the Jory Prum article, using the ID justlettersandnumbers (JLAN), is the one exhibiting, not only extreme bias, but extreme malice, in a manner which appears to be more consistent with personal vendetta than actual attempt at neutrality.
In other words, the argument for deletion of the Prum article is not a legitimate attempt to "neutralize" content in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but a biased attempt by a non-neutral individual with a personal grudge, to discredit and malign, using Wikipedia as both the weapon and the battleground, in a "shameless" ad-hominem attack.
In summary, it is the opinions as expressed by JLAN, and not the article itself, that are by Wikipedia's own definitions and guidelines, violations of Wikipedia terms and conditions. CrisCross1836 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)CrisCross1836 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comments. I disagree with the nomination when it says "wholly non-notable" as clearly there is a little coverage of the subject. The question before us is whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. I have my doubts but, much as I distrust autobiographical writing and detest the personal attacks on the nominator above, I am not quite sure enough to vote delete. I am not familiar with the precedents. Do we have articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage? Would other articles regard those accolades as significant? One thing I am pretty sure of is that CrisCross1836 (seemingly an account registered just for this particular issue) is doing anything but helping Jory's cause by hyping up the discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Responding to DanielRigal's question about other articles for similar people with same (or lower) levels of coverage. This is just a random selection I found of other game developers or audio engineers. (It is difficult to find any articles at all that refer to video game audio engineers, most likely due to the lack of coverage the press tends to pay to the contributions of that portion of the games industry.) Sean Clark, Michael Stemmle, Larry Ahern, Paul Wedgwood, Jeff Hickman, Joe Sparks, Howie Beno, Mike Coykendall, Niko Bolas, Steve Burke. None of these are nominated for deletion at this time. The Joe Sparks article was tagged for speedy deletion and the tag was removed in 2010 with the comment, "removed speedy tag - there are claims to significance in article". Mike Coykendall was tagged for deletion a year ago, but there is no note as to why the article was allowed to remain. Steve Burke was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was declined with the comment, "decline; asserts importance with scoring of video games". Some are clearly tagged as needing improvement or citations. None have very many quality citations. Another good article to compare to might be Jared Emerson-Johnson, a composer I have worked with on a great many projects. We have worked on projects that received awards together, and I have utilized his article as an guide for the substantial revision of mine. Also, I agree with you that CrisCross1836 is not adding to the discussion in a constructive manner. I do not feel that I have been singled out by Justlettersandnumbers; only that the rules are being applied unevenly and that citations are being cherry-picked by the editor to prove a point that is not true when viewed within a larger frame. Jory (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My apology for not being clear. I was merely responding to the question posted by DanielRigal about other articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage. I have fixed the indentation to make the response more obviously part of a thread. Jory (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was the one who nominated this article for speedy deletion (right here) primarily on the grounds that it was an article that was made by the person who was the subject matter. Looking at the article in its new incarnation, I don't believe that the article has that much reliable sources to show the subject matter being notable. The Polygon article was a nice catch but seeing IMDB, Wookiepedia, a link from Google Groups, YouTube videos and this as sources, along with some references that I'm unfamiliar with their reliable (e.g Lzy Gmrs) really has me believing there's a case of grasping at straws to find some sources to use for this page. GamerPro64 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Responding to GamerPro64's comment about certain unfamiliar or "weak" sources. The reason for the Lzy Gmrs citation is because the Golden Joystick Awards nominations data is no longer shown on the official website and most reputable news sites only include a short list, which doesn't mention the nominees for less popular categories like "Best Audio". I have now replaced that flat list from a lesser known news blog with the archive.org cache of the original website. The reason for some of the other citations you are calling into question is not so much a "grasping at straws", but out of an effort to cite information as being credible and not pulled out of thin air. For example, the NY Times link was to verify involvement with the two films listed, since IMDB is considered a weak source and one would hope the NY Times and All Media Guide (which are not user editable) would be considered stronger. The Google Groups citation was to verify the claim of having worked at Jim Henson's Creature Shop. I was not given screen credit for the work I did on a film while I was there and the only online verification I could source was a thread relating to work I had been performing with the Acorn Computer-based proprietary Henson Puppet Control System at the time. I realize that particular citation is flimsy, and if it were to be removed, then there would be no way (apart from my resume and from anecdotes of others I worked with) that I actually did work there. Of course, it is far less notable than having done signature sound design for a PIxar film and being thanked in the director's acceptance speech, and could easily be removed if it is considered too weak to include in the biography. I'm unclear why a YouTube video that contains a third party discussing work the subject did or verifies involvement in a project is considered weak sourcing. There were also two books cited, one published by Pixar, and the other by Oxford University; do those sources not qualify as strong and indicative of notability? Jory (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I cannot get into the significance of references for this article, but I feel strongly about the notability of the subject matter. Alone his recent contributions to the restoration of Grim Fandango, detailed at Polygon, makes him notable to computer (gaming) historians, gamers and others. Ltning (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Ltning (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep * Without being a game buff, I have always been interested in sound engineering. This is not exactly a high profile profession, and if anyone tells me they know the name of the team behind "Amadeus" or "Black Hawk Down", I'll be the first to call on their b.s. So, any references on "notability" are not only biased, but also very subjective. I think it would take someone really dedicated to the Foley sound effects or sound engineering in general to be able to name team members, even from highly acclaimed films. Returning to the topic at hand, I was quite taken with the in depth article on Polygon regarding the restoration technique for Grim Fandango and it made me want to read up more on the game itself and the crazy people who were involved in that particular task. It would be a shame to have the little information available scrapped entirely because of this controversy...RazvraTina (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )RazvraTina (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and this is the first for six years.
  • Keep It seems to me to be a well cited and neutral article about an audio designer that has done a lot of important work on several big titles in both games and animation production. When you see people get mentioned by name in articles about projects like Grim Fandango, Sam and Max, For The birds, (or oscar acceptance speeches for that matter,) you would really like your google search to return a well made wiki article to you for more information.SteepMountain (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )SteepMountain (talkcontribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Can anyone supply more sources that cover the subject, Jory Porum, in significant detail? Outside of the Polygon source, every single one I've decided to spot-check from the article either mentioned him very briefly in passing, or not at all. It needs to discuss him in significant detail for him to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.. Without providing more actual proof, all these editors coming out to say it's "a well sourced article" are going to be ignored, because it's a baseless claim. You need to prove what you're actually saying. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are some of the more thorough sources:
* Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango (Polygon)
* From Scarface to Simlish (Mix Magazine)
* The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) (VG newspaper)
* The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work (24700: News from California Institute of the Arts)
* The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum (The Walking Dead Wiki)
* Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper)
* StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine)
* What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine)
* The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video)
* The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7)
It is challenging for audio engineers to get more than a mention (if even that much) in the media. Most of the time, audio engineers are just the butt of everyone's jokes, not real news or features.
Most of the other citations on the article are merely support for factual data, since Wikipedia requires citations for all information. Jory (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the sources:
  1. Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango - Sourced deemed reliable by consensus at WP:VG/S. While Prum is not necessarily the main things being discussed in it, it does discuss him in significant detail. Good source.
  2. From Scarface to Simlish - I'm not familiar with the website, but looking it over, I didn't find anything that made me think it would be unreliable. Much like the Polygon source, he is not the main subject, but is discussed in some detail. Good source
  3. The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) - I can't read Norwegian, but his name is mentioned 11 times through the article, its a relative long piece, and a photo of him at the top as the main photo, so it appears to cover him in detail. Probably reliable.
  4. The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work - Appears to be a non-notable blog from some sort of educational center. Clicking on the author just gave a link to "other things he posted", no info on credentials. Probably not usuable.
  5. The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum Wikis are almost always not useable - because they are open to edit by anyone, and often run by people of no real authority. Not usable.
  6. Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper) - Link wouldn't work for me, so I couldn't check it. Inconclusive.
  7. StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  8. What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  9. The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video) - WP:VG/S doesn't have a stance on whether they're neutral or not. Interviews are generally useable for details, but not necessarily for going towards notability, because it's really more of a first party account. Inconclusive.
  10. The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7) - I'm unfamiliar with the website, and don't know Swedish. Probably not a good sign that his name is only mentioned one single time in the article. Inconclusive
I'm still on the fence on this one. Generally, its seems like 4-5 reliable sources covering the subject in detail is enough to warrant a "Keep". This one is close. I'm starting to think there could be a policy-based reason for keeping the article, unless someone can present some ways that I'm wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 If you are intending to contribute here, note that votes from Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts with few or no edits elsewhere will be disregarded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the notability criterion. A subject must meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or he/she/it cannot have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. The sources passionately touted above by the author-and-subject of this article do not meet the criteria of independence and reliability. Wikis, Facebook, IMDb and similar sites are neither reliable nor independent. Sergecross finds some of the references to be acceptable, and I respect his opinion, but I am less impressed by the reliability of the sources. As Jory mentioned above, "Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art." Yes, it is. Invisible professions usually do not receive the required coverage. That does not mean they get to ignore or bypass the notability requirement; it means they don't get an article. BTW I trust the closing administrator will ignore all the sockpuppet or meatpuppet "keep" votes here from single purpose accounts. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN, I do agree with what you say, and I'm not okay with any of the social media/WP:USERG-violating sources either. I'm open to input on the remainder of the sources. I didn't see anything wrong with them, but I can't say I'm an expert in "sound production" sources or anything, so by all means let me know if I'm overlooking details of the sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per some of the sources Jory has provided and per Sergecross73's analysis of them which I largely agree with. Jory should brush up on WP:COI paying specific attention to WP:COISELF. There is no good reason that Jory's edits should represent 73% of the content and 97% of the total edits. I also trust that the closing admin will ignore the blatant meatpuppetry. -Thibbs (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • To clarify my view (in light of Czar's comment below), I think the subject meets GNG. Based on the sources provided. The question balances on how much coverage constitutes "significant coverage". I'd say the coverage is sufficiently significant to give it a pass. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to state for the record that I have never posted on WP under any account other than the one I am using now, nor have I asked people to post favorable comments, nor told anyone that they should post or what to say. Any comments posted by the users being flagged as SPAs were done by people who were not me and were posted of their own volition. You can call them meatpuppets if you so choose; those posts are not affiliated with me, although it is entirely possible they are people I know or have worked with at some point. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that I have tried to be honest, straightforward, level-headed, and ethical throughout this entire process and that asking others to post on my behalf in order to influence the discussion here is simply not something I will do. Jory (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jory's shameless and ought-to-know better WP:COI and WP:spammy walls-of-text above are almost certainly counter-productive, but if pornstars get to keep their articles based upon winning significant industry awards, then I don't see why he can't under the same criteria. Pax 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All of these arguments related to "occupations" are invalid as well. Much like Jory's argument of "well its hard for people in my profession to get sources" doesn't matter, neither does the status of any occupation. It's third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, and not breaking any violations of WP:NOT - this is all that matters. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not so much that this article lacks third-party sources, but that there are few that discuss him in detail, as opposed to discussing things he's worked on and just mentioning him. Even so, there appear to be some that are primarily about him, e.g. MobyGames, GameReactor. Tezero (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Mobygames isn't a reliable source, it fails WP:USERG. WP:VG/S is undecided on if it's an RS. It's a video interview though, so it's usually considered more of a first party source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Grim Fandango. I look to WP:CREATIVE. While Prum has coverage in somewhat of a niche field, I see the sources discussed with Serge above and they don't speak of him in such a way to fulfill Creative #1, 2, 3, or 4, which puts us back at the general notability guideline, where there is coverage that isn't quite significant. Again, what is the subject known for? Is his oeuvre cited for its monumentality? The sources do not say yes. Additionally, the article is overrun with details that do not descend from secondary sources as something of a hat rack. I would be happy to reconsider this stance if given more dedicated (and reliable) sourcing. This discussion is no doubt exacerbated by the author's inability to distance himself from the article. Wikipedia and AfD carries along just fine without any of us, and things move smoother when those overly involved can distance themselves. After deletion, I recommend a redirect to Grim Fandango, Prum's most notable work. With his knowledge of and competency with Wikipedia, I hope the author sticks around WP:VG to edit unrelated articles. czar  02:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grim Fandango as the subject is not notable enough to have its own article under WP:GNG. Lacks any verifiable sources needed to properly cite a BLP. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning weakest of all keeps) - This is a tough one. On one hand, there may be enough coverage to get by WP:BIO. On the other, what purpose does WP:COS serve (and it's quite clear wording) if it has no practical implications (i.e. WP:TNT)? @Jory: Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. - Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to provide a venue to celebrate those professions which go under-recognized elsewhere. In fact, one of the common criticisms of Wikipedia is that when it operates according to its own rules, as a tertiary source, it reinforces the status quo (i.e. covers things already well covered). I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I appreciate your thoughts. I was not suggesting that WP should accept an article merely due to audio engineering being an invisible art; I was more intending the point that while some professions (such as acting or composing) can get heaps of media coverage and are easy to find reliable sources for, audio engineering as an invisible art is particularly challenging to get real coverage. As a professional, I've spent a great deal of time promoting my business and myself, trying to get any coverage I can. Most of these end up as press coverage of projects, though, not of the studio or person themselves. I guess the question I have is what constitutes enough coverage? If that standard is applied equally to all subjects, it certainly would exclude those who may be deemed notable in their own fields, despite not having name recognition outside of their field.
I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. I'm curious what constitutes a "horde". ;-) I see three accounts that have been flagged as being irregular editors, two of which may certainly be a single-purpose account. Jory (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I count 4, and then there's yourself, as both the subject and the article creator. (You're not quite an SPA, as you've made edits elsewhere, but you certainly have a bias/invested interest outside of building an encyclopedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 22 February 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 // 00:47, 24 February 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 snow close, delete. Regardless of whatever type of article this is, it's fairly clear that the consensus is to delete. At best this is a WP:ONEDAY type of scenario where this is just something someone came up with on a forum and at worst it's a WP:NOT type of deal. Either way, it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong[edit]

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Put aside your reaction to the title for the moment, because it's not exactly what it says on the tin. What this really is, rather, is a metacommentary about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the topic described in the title, sourced only to a Facebook post which wrongly suggests that we do. This is, put simply, not the kind of thing we should have an "article" about — and it shouldn't be repurposed as what its title actually suggests, because that's not the kind of thing we should have an article about either. Taking this to AFD only because there's already a declined speedy in the edit history — I'd have speedied it straight away otherwise. Delete with TNT. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not article material. I could see an essay of this nature being created but not under this title.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 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.

February 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Virtual Skies Network[edit]

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

non-notable video game players group Deunanknute (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not seeing any good references. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:03, 4 February 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 02:04, 4 February 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 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability just appears to be a self-referenced gamer network. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 16 February 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.

February 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 delete. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Zone of Ultima[edit]

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

non-notable video game clan Deunanknute (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see anything that could serve as independent coverage in reliable sources. And frankly, I don't see much in the article that would even represent a credible claim of notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:56, 3 February 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) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 February 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. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NukeZone[edit]

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

non-notable video game Deunanknute (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: no real changes since previous AfD, and frankly that was only a weak keep. The time has come to delete. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:33, 3 February 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) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 03:29, 4 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

William Hjelte[edit]

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

Delete. Does not qualify WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:03, 3 February 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, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This person passed BLP and has been significantly covered by multiple reliable sources, such as Kotaku, The Daily Dot, Nintendo Enthusiast, and gamersyndrome. He has also received minor coverage from this source [10]. Valoem talk contrib 18:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Subject has a multitude of well documented, independent secondary sources. Satisfies notability guidelines deliniated by WP:BIO.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known figure in smash community and significantly covered by well known sources. Thehack771 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Covered by well known sources, this person passes BLP and is extremely notable in the Smash community (Leffen has taken a set on ALL FIVE Melee gods, making himself a Demigod in some sort). UltraDark:) 2 CHAT 21:49, 5 February 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.

February 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thrive (video game)[edit]

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

Game still far from release, no sign of meeting our guidelines for software notability - sole Reliable Sourcy reference does not mention Thrive. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Dev here (Untrustedlife, Michael Hamm) (Im not a team lead, just a humble programmer), but we have been itertively releasing updates for the game for several months. Actually.But A fan set up the wikipedia entry.I went ahead and made it a bit more accurate (the article) however, I agree that it is not really that "notable" yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.92.99 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: The only source which isn't a reddit post, is actually a review of Spore. No third-party sources mentioning the game can be found. Naturally, the article can be re-created once it becomes notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, for now at least. There's no third party coverage yet, and no hurry to create the article, considering how early in development the game appears to be. —Torchiest talkedits 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are over already more than 10 versions of the current in-development game[1] available. It is also, according to the developers, one of the rare game that intends to be scientifically exact, which is why it should be notable[2]. BurnoutShou (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
References
We don't take product creators' words that something is particularly special. Really, in general, when we say "notable", we really mean "noted" - that other people of significance are talking about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP:N clearly states that the we need multiple independent sources with non-trivial coverage to meet that guideline. Statements from a developer are obviously not independent.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 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) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search comes up empty. It's a bit too soon for this game, and we can recreate the article later when there's coverage. I suggest they submit a few press releases to gaming blogs. That might get the ball rolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and other, similar comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:47, 7 February 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.

February 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

'Souls RPG[edit]

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

delete as non-notable per WP:GNG, all refs are internal Deunanknute (talk) 00:31, 1 February 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) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 February 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 (either as "souls rpg" or "bleeding souls"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  02:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Czar. — Joaquin008 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Czar. I couldn't find any third party reliable sources for this game. (There are some false-positives out there because there's a number of unrelated JRPGs with the word "Soul" in the title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 1 February 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.

January 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Khan Wars[edit]

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

non-notable, current ref's appear to be promotional Deunanknute (talk) 12:23, 30 January 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) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 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) 19:56, 6 February 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.

January 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Soft deletion, equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution (Bemani Pocket video games)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. I can't find any reliable sources that cover these games. It's possible that non-English print sources do exist. I'd imagine that older Japanese magazines, for example, do cover them. So no prejudice against recreating the article if sources are located in the future. Thibbs (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 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) 00:13, 3 February 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.

January 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 Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bunny Girl[edit]

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

No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, neither in article nor in web searches. Lots of blogs, deviantart, and anime wikis though. Possible original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 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) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Userfy/Move to Draftspace, as bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Franbunnyffxii (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.
    The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion, original research, or fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Franbunnyffxii: If you want, we can WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.

This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Franbunnyffxii: It is not at all a matter of opinion. It is a matter of of Notablity, which requires evidence: e.g. you or anyone else providing a couple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, such as a book (not a comic book), news feature, article by a renowned artist or pop-culture scholar, or something that wasn't posted by an anonymous user on a website that profits from promoting anime fandom. Wikias like you mentioned are user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.
It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?

↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)

Furthering the question of validity of Wikia

What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?

What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin

Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However, reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I admit that this article needs some work, I'm opposed to deleting it outright. This is a topic that I feel deserves coverage. Bensci54 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    See WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Animalparty, it's WP:VALUABLE, not WP:ILIKEIT. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentFranbunnyffxii, what the article needs is more sources like this one: The Anime Machine, a book on anime. When I searched it for "bunny", there were 5 references. You could look for game reviews or descriptions of famous characters (in books and magazines, not fan sites). Ideally one that discusses bunny ears in some depth, or at least as part of the moe + animal trope. If you can find 3 or 4 more references like the book, that should be enough evidence for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 09:03, 3 February 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 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no objection to userfying, and would encourage Franbunnyffxii to do some real research on the topic. Cite a textbook on Anime history, not a video game manual, and hold back all of your opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. The question is not of existence, but notability. If after months of incubation, all that can be produced is a list of fictional characters that have bunny ears, but no secondary sources that address the question of "what does it mean?", "who cares?", or "why bunnies?", then we'll be back to this same discussion. Again, see Existence ≠ Notability and Existence does not prove notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy per others. We can wait until notability is demonstrated on the draft. APerson (talk!) 19:19, 9 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Myriam Joire[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person which makes a potentially valid claim of notability, but fails to adequately source it — as written, this relies entirely on primary sources, with not even one remotely reliable source cited in the entire article. And even a Google News search is turning up lots of coverage in blogs, and virtually none in the kind of sources it takes to get a person past our inclusion rules. First discussion was a no-consensus close, for the record — but that lack of consensus hinged on disagreement about whether the claim of notability was substantive at all, and failed to address the more significant issue (i.e. the lack of quality sourcing to support her notability). No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but the sourcing on display here is nowhere near the level it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 15:19, 25 January 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) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 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) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep, notable writer/ senior mobile editor/whatever at engadget[11] (also did a podcast there). Wonder if OP looked up "tnkgrl" which the subject is better known by: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. They appeared on TWiT [22] as well as various other podcasts here and there [23]. Google News has plenty of coverage for "myriam" and "tnkgrl" [24] (tnkgrl). Used to be a dev at dolby. -- dsprc [talk] 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Even in that list of sources, I'm still not seeing a wealth of publications that count as appropriately reliable sources that can confer notability on a WP:BLP. Wired is about the only acceptable source in the entire bunch, actually — and even it's a blurb which is nowhere near long or detailed enough to carry a person's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bearcat: TechCrunch, Ars Technica, Hackaday and GigaOm are reliable sources. As for notability, Joire was Senior Editor for mobile at engadget (AOL) where they wrote hundreds of articles for years. Their hardware hacking activities have been covered by numerous sources and their position with Pebble has gained even more coverage and notoriety.[25] Google News provides plenty of sources as well and is linked at the top of every AfD. But, I guess PC Magazine, The Inquirer, Barron's, Fast Company, NPR, The Daily Telegraph, EE Times (where Joire is seemingly notable enough to directly question Qualcomm Senior VP about her assertions[26]) are all just fly-by-night operations as well. -- dsprc [talk] 12:47, 9 February 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.

January 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lego Superman: The Video Game[edit]

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

Not a single source to back up the claim that even once this video game might've been in development. A Google search brought up not a single valid website or article that would suggest that at one point it might've been considered being made. Soetermans. T / C 22:50, 24 January 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) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: There's a few Flash games and a small reference at the end of Lego Batman, but that's it, nothing even remotely resembling a reliable source. This GameSpot forum thread is possibly the origin of this article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 26 January 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.

January 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

List of ships in Eve Online[edit]

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

Trivial listing of items only relevant to ingame play. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:IINFO --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom - leave this to game wikis Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Gbawden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 23 January 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) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this is more suited to game wikis. There seems to be little encyclopedic that we can say about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This info is relatively useless to an outsider, and there is very little published material to support its notability. Nosaj544 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 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.

January 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. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey[edit]

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

A casual puzzle game released this past Saturday, without the independent reliable sources that might distinguish it from the tens of thousands of others it so closely resembles. Fails WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There's limited coverage/reviews among a few tech/Android-specific sites, but not enough to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "Enough" isn't the word I'd use. If reliable sources exist for this game, I couldn't find them amidst the blast of SEO spam. —Cryptic 23:12, 20 January 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) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Android software article of unclear notability, lacking reliable references. One is from the developer, and the other has no stated editorial policy, in any case, one review is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 22:42, 23 January 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.

January 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brock (Pokémon)[edit]

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

Yet another biography of fictional character that Is 90% unreferenced. Yes, it has a critical reception section that has some refs, but it's very short, and thus failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The reception is valuable and could be merged to List of Pokemon characters, or another relevant article, but the remaining 90% of content does not belong here (it is already much better covered at a relevant wikia article. ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

* Delete Yet another reason Wikipedia isn't taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Selectivemerge to List of Pokémon characters per nom. Somewhat on the fence with this one. I was leaning towards a weak keep, but then I realized that he hasn't really made much of an impact. There is some reception, but I don't think it's really enough for a separate article. He could instead warrant a longer section in the aforementioned link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:08, 19 January 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) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm on the fence here as well. On one hand, it could definitely use some cleanup. On the other hand, its looks like two separately published books discuss him in regards to his real-world relationship to Japanese culture. That could be argued to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 23 January 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 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Pokémon characters, I don't see enough notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The List of Pokémon anime characters is already nearing WP:TOOLONG. The Misty (Pokémon) article shows that enough refs likely exist if someone does the research (especially if done by someone who can read Japanese), given that Block plays a bigger part in the five Pokémon series, seventeen movies, six video game series, etc. At the worst, Merge with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I really strongly doubt that insufficient coverage exists for one of the most important characters in arguably one of the most famous, if not the most famous, anime series in the Western world. The article already shows the analysis of the character exists in printed sources, and it's very likely that there's more, both in English and Japanese (and possibly other languages as well?). Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Major character from possibly the most well known anime in the western world. Yes, the article is not well cited, but this could be improved. Improve the article as it is definitely notable, rather than forcing anyone who wants to write a good article to start from scratch. Kavidun (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I find myself swayed by Satellizer's stance. There's already some coverage in there, and there's bound to be more considering the subject. Keep, but add some clean up tags. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I am sure there is a lot of references can be found. Even if those are lacking, the primary source could be used which is the anime itself to probably give enough substance to make it worthwhile considering in how many episodes he has been and not to forget the movies.(Just thinking of going over 800 episodes does send a shiver down my spine) However, the thing that is mostly lacking and that is the case with almost all the pokemon articles. Are willing serious editors that are willing to stick a huge bit of free time in re-working these articles in a better more sourced shape. NathanWubs (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Brock is a major character and deserves his own page. I'm sure sources could be found that would make this pages' standing more firm. Bensci54 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep in mind this is not a vote, but a discussion, and so far I am not seeing any valid counteraguments. Rather than saying "WP:ITSIMPORTANT and therefore there must be more reliable sources", it would be nice if somebody pointed to a single reliable source that the article is not using... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposal that there is already a small amount of sources available, and that said sources (Print Media) indicate that there's likely to be more out there, is, in fact, a valid stance. These discussions are based on their potential rather than just their current status. I can do some digging for sources to be more persuasive, sure, but I don't think its accurate to discount this stance wholesale. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 28 January 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. Discussion said that redirect is not necessary Shii (tock) 05:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a yet to be published video game, can't find release date, it's WP:TOOSOON. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 18 January 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 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plenty of coverage, but it's all about the announcement from 2013. No news since. Anything that needs to be said can be sourced and put in Shadow of the Beast. Not a useful search term on its own if there's nothing at the location. Lacks significant coverage in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is there really not any coverage, with all of this game's releases and ports? Furthermore, it strikes me as rather awkward to delete the original, but have articles for 2, 3, and the remake. If getting rid of it is the only option, I propose we rework the article into either a series article, or merge it to the remake. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The delete nomination is for the remake that hasn't been released yet (nor does it have a release date)...so we couldn't merge it to the remake... The original and 2 + 3 aren't up for deletion. Or did I misunderstand your post? Vrac (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I misread the nomination and Czars comment and though the nomination was for the original. Nevermind, ignore that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shadow of the Beast#Remake ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to have coverage beyond the announcement. I'm skeptical that this would be a useful redirect, especially given that it will presumably one day become obsolete. But I guess a redirect is alright if it's necessary for consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good reason not to create the redirect since while it may eventually become obsolete (likely when it becomes notable enough for a separate article) it will, at this time, provide people searching for the remake with relevant info about it. it should be noted that there is a list of reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD And potential future obsolescence as one of them, nor do I think it should be--65.94.255.73 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is ever going to search Wikipedia for "Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)". Anyone looking for information will search for "Shadow of the Beast" and be taken to the appropriate article immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that this is not a useful search term and that there is no reason to redirect, even if it's cheap czar  21:54, 24 January 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.

January 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cricket Stock Exchange[edit]

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

Delete. Article has no references and lacks notability. It is about a defunct temporary website that had, at best, only peripheral relevance to cricket. Should be deleted because it is not a notable subject. Jack | talk page 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nomination PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nomination--Alza08 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. It would be very difficult to establish any notability for this website. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:48, 23 January 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) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 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.

January 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 redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Boppin'[edit]

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

Not notable, no sourcing found (reviews, articles, etc.). Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: The creator's page is up for deletion (Jennifer Diane Reitz). This could probably be redirected into her article and then we could consider whether or not the sources for the game and website (Happy Puppy), paired with the JDR sources would make her pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 18:40, 17 January 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) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. I think that individually there are good reasons to be worried that the articles for JDR and this game would fail notability guidelines, but I think that if we lump the pages together then we'd have about one good page that would pass. I'd actually prefer to have this all together under the name of their programming group Accursed Toys, but then the info about JDR just wouldn't really fit well in that article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. At a glance, there aren't enough sources to justify a standalone article. (I don't remember why I originally thought the article was a good idea.) A redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz seems appropriate if that article survives AfD. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:02, 31 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaijuland Battles[edit]

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

I tagged this as a speedy on promotional grounds, but that was declined. I cannot see, however, any claim for notability here, let alone verification of such a claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This is actually a recreation after an initial deletion on promotional grounds - I Prod'd that on the same grounds and was declined. This article is an unreferenced promotion (excluding references to company website) of a yet to be released game from a non-notable company. It is not clear but that might be the companies first product.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason and deletion/recreation history. This is in fact the second yet to be released game from the company.:

The Fall of Nemesis: Clash of the Kaijujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles. Not seeing any reviews or other independent, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 18 January 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, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:01, 24 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Darius, the Hand of Noxus[edit]

Darius, the Hand of Noxus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Darius, the Hand of Noxus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This should be deleted or redirected to League of Legends, this is fan content that should be included in the League of Legends wiki, not Wikipedia. Non-notable video game character. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - wrong wiki, not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above. Neutralitytalk 05:32, 18 January 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 3D Realms#As Apogee Software. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus (video game)[edit]

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

Deprodded with "sources available, can be purchased still", but no proof of sources was given and being available for purchase is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, Needs some help from WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [27]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Comparing against WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [28][29][30][31] and an appearance in an old magazine [32]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 3D Realms. Best known as an Apogee (3D Realms) game unless someone digs up some offline sources. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there's nothing sourced to merge to its parent. It'll only be worth a mention if we can find more coverage, but it remains a good search term. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  23:37, 17 January 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) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 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.

January 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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer Diane Reitz[edit]

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

Not notable. All sources are WP:PRIMARY or do not mention her. Her three webcomics are not notable, nor is the site. Last AFD was nine years ago and resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've fixed a few of the cites and she is mentioned in some academic texts and other works. ([33], [34]) I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I think that she'll probably squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I do think that it'd probably be best to merge Happy Puppy into her article, though. It's such a brief article that it could easily be merged and redirected to the appropriate section. I'd advise this as opposed to vice-versa since JDR has received notice in the earlier mentioned academic texts for her other actions/works, so it'd make sense for her to have an article that incorporates info about Happy Puppy as opposed to an article about the site that had information about her. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, in spite of good efforts by Tokyogirl79. I looked at the main sources currently used in the article; while it appears Ms. Reitz is mentioned in several high quality independent sources, it is only in passing. I do not see high quality sources that treat her as the central focus, so (unless we have missed some significant works) she does not meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Peteforsyt: What do you think about merging this together with Happy Puppy? I think that together they could make for a decent article that passes notability guidelines as a whole. She created the website with her two domestic partners but she's always been the face/name of the company as a whole for the most part. I think I'll try to do a test merge of information to see how this looks. I won't redirect the main article for Happy Puppy until there's a consensus though, as I don't want it to get deleted if this closes as delete for JDR. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not super gung-ho on keeping this, I mostly just want to make sure that this merge is taken into consideration so that if this is deleted and it gets contested, we can say that it was considered. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like Boppin' is up for deletion. That could probably be redirected to this article as well, I think. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:41, 17 January 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) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 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 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not overwhelmingly happy with the sourcing on the page, but there's enough there to pass notability guidelines. I think that if we lump together the article for Boppin' and Happy Puppy together with JDR's article, there is enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole. I'd actually prefer for this all to be in an article under the group's name of Accursed Toys since Happy Puppy and Boppin' were technically released by the group, but the information about JDR wouldn't fit neatly in that article and part of the sources about her are needed to really help push notability. It's not the strongest keep and I do think that this should probably be revisited in the future if notability guidelines grow more strict (which is one of the few givens on Wikipedia), but for now she seems to pass notability guidelines. It's not the strongest keep but I think that if we get rid of the individual pages and make this the main article for everything, it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:27, 24 January 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 02:55, 31 January 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. keep ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Unreal characters[edit]

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. The Unreal series is notable, but that doesn't mean its characters are. Λeternus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 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) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a WP:SPLIT from Unreal (series), which at present just has a link to this list. So at most this is getting merged, not deleted, though it's standard practice to keep such separate lists when they are too long to fit in the parent article. It's up to editors on this topic to decide how practical that is. Finally, it's nonsensical to claim that any information about the characters from a notable video game series is unverifiable; does the nominator think this list is a hoax? One could generate at least a bare bones yet accurate list just from playing the game(s), even without consulting any of the product manuals or third-party game guides that undoubtedly exist. I also can't even imagine how a video game series could be notable without any of the requisite secondary sources (such as critical reviews) discussing its characters at all. So maybe "fails...WP:V" was just a typo and the nominator meant something else. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This level of detail on fictional/game characters borders on copyright violation. The game paid good money to artists to create them. Do we have the right to republish their work for our own entertainment? BayShrimp (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: In this particular instance, I highly doubt the company is adverse to the free advertizing. Pax 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or maybe Unsplit: By no means is detail in an encyclopedia copyright infringement for a video game unless the words themselves were taken straight from text in/about the game. However, there's only one source, and that's a wiki about the game, and I haven't been able to find anything worth mentioning about the characters past that. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) After looking over Hakken's sources, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. While the article could use some cleanup, there's plenty of sources that I didn't find, and that was the basis for my deletion !vote. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm inclined to say this is not notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Hakken (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • 1-6 look fine, the GameSpot review is iffy (seems to be user-created), 8 and 9 are good, TV Tropes isn't the most reliable source around. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 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) 00:43, 23 January 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 12:13, 30 January 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeslaughter[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced; attempting to search for references using Google seems to yield no notable results. I found a bunch of IGN/G4TV-type "hub" pages with no articles about the game on those respective websites, and mentions of the game on a few tiny blogs and forums. The only actual mention of the game in any semi-noteworthy source was this AskMen article. Basically, the game appears to be non-notable, and attempts to find reliable sources mentioning the game have failed. V2Blast (talk) 06:22, 15 January 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) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing in the way of coverage in reliable sources that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 21 January 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 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This one is complex because this is only one of a half dozen or so games that link to Bloodlust. None have much content, most have no references. The original Bloodlust site is gone (as of early 2014) but I just added a link to the wayback machine entry. There is a page for Bloodlust on the gaming wiki, so the entire history is not lost. It would be good to copy what is here to that wiki before deletion (which I think is the right choice, thus delete). LaMona (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A user can request Wikipedia:Userfication and have the content moved to his or her personal pages after the afd concludes. This may be an option if you are interested in moving the content to a different wiki.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The askmen ref mentioned above is brief coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any further significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 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.

January 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to Richman (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Richman 4[edit]

Richman 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Richman 4" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I came across this as a speedy with the assertion "content is wrong and imnecessary". The game does technically exist (although the year appeared to be wrong, which I've removed) and since it doesn't technically fall under any real speedy criteria I'm listing it for AfD. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Richman 4 , also named as "da fu weng 4" , is a famous and classic windows game in great China area. The game is only published by Chinese language, so it is not well known by non-Chinese people. Please reference this link. [[45]] I think the article name can be changed to da fu weng 4 if it is approved by most people. Thanks. Daiquping (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh god the nostalgia, I used to play the sh*t out of 5 and 6. However in the AfD department it would be hard to save this pretty old (1998) game, which would need to dig up older printed Chinese (mostly from Taiwan) materials. Via Google Books I can find [46] noting "Richman 4 was a glorious apex and a turning point for the series" and [47] having a Richman article (although looks to be more focused on the whole series). The online sources I can think of reaches to at most like 5 [48], and the really solid ones don't start until 7 [49]. Peculiarly though, note that this is the only article on anything Richman in enwp, nothing on the whole series or any of the other seven games until 8 (and online and mobile ports). It might be also possible to save this in the form of a merged Richman (series), with the news that a Richman 9 might be coming out [50]. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    PS No point referencing zh:大富翁4 because that was WP:NOTGUIDE like crazy (in fact also 3 through 8). But I did find a source [51] via their Richman article, that has content for until 6 and lists two awards for 4 specifically. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:04, 14 January 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) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps you'd be best to make a series wide article and merge it in, if it is on the edge between definitely notable and maybe not? JTdaleTalk~ 01:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - No notable issue. Keep as a stub. Daiquping (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge the Richman (series) article that yarouin just made makes this article unnecessary. If the series article grows enough to make length a concern, then maybe we should consider a split, but until then, I see no reason to insist that a one two sentence article get its own separate page. Forbes72 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Morris (voice actress)[edit]

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

not notable per WP:NACTOR. Had 3 acting credits between 2002-2003 LADY LOTUSTALK 15:19, 14 January 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) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, mostly per nom. Also, a biography shouldn't only be sourced to IMDb. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination. Fails notability.Wobzrem (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:47, 22 January 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.

January 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. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Town of Salem[edit]

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

I came across this article and deleted copyright violations and marked an unreferenced statement. After evaluating it further I am concerned about the topic's notability, and I do not believe this page satisfies WP:NGAME. The page has never had references to independent sources, and I've tried looking for them and came up empty. The only references to the game I have found are either Kickstarter references or posts by the publisher itself, neither of which can be considered reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. I'm not entirely opposed to merging this content into Mafia (party game), as an alternative, although I'm not sure that even this is appropriate, because there are quite a decent number of games based on Mafia and covering them all would tend to detract from that article. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:05, 13 January 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 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Despite being a kickstarter backer of this game, I personally don't think it is notable in the least. No coverage I can find anywhere. JTdaleTalk~ 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, which is unfortunate as I play Town of Salem online and it is a great game, but there really are no other options. There is this and this in terms of coverage, but unless more sources are found thry aren't enough. Merging to Mafia (party game) may also work. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 09:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I performed a Google search and got some coverage. The game was one of the entrants at the International Games Festival, and an independent review here. The problem with the second link is that I'm not too sure whether it is a blog or a professional one. EthicallyYours! 12:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mafia (party game) - And including this reference for its brief description within the page. Everything else should be deleted as it does not meet the criteria of WP:NGAME, as Shirik stated. Jd02022092 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EthicallyYours! 08:59, 24 January 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) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Society (video game)[edit]

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

It seems that this article does not meet the notability requirements. This game was said to be in development in 2011, but apparently has not been released (yet). Fred Johansen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Keep. Doesn't meet notability guidelines; unable to locate any reliable sources talking about this topic. Obviously didn't look hard enough initially. Was able to locate reliable sources talking about it. APerson (talk!) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC); edited 00:18, 14 January 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) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm unsure of the stances above are due to confusion on notability criteria, or a failure of WP:BEFORE, but there is definitely significant coverage from multiple, third party, reliable sources on the subject, which is what the WP:GNG requires. Below are sources that cover it in detail, and have a consensus for being reliable by WikiProject Video Games at WP:VG/S:
  1. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/society-e3-2005-impressions/1100-6126078/
  2. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/stardock-announces-society/1100-6125372/
  3. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/society/614757p1.html
  4. http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-society-first-look
Being in development hell or being cancelled is not a valid criteria for deletion, so I really don't follow any deletion stances... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 13 January 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.

January 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 keep. Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Liana K[edit]

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

This is a vanity article about a non-noteworthy person whose only claim to fame or notability is her husband's accomplishments. Most pf the previously listed BLP sources are her own Twitter and blog-based posts. Much of the BLP is unsourced, and most of the references are too close to the subject or have been self-published by the subject for their own blatant self-promotion. MBPLY (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep & please close because of this. (Note: Liana Kerzner has some pretty obsessive haters, including a certain ex-friend who even owns/owned a blog that seemed to be dedicated solely to hating her.) The article might use of some additional sources, though (which is not unlike just about every article), on things like the radio show. --302ET (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of that hate-blog, and the nominator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liana_K&diff=prev&oldid=641796211 (please delete that edit, for the obvious reasons). --302ET (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The article in question was created in 2006, and having been constantly improved since then, is a decent, but not spectacular article. Liana is a well know Canadian TV celebrity, having been co-host, as "Red" of Ed & Red's Night Party on Canadian Superstation CITY-TV and Canada's response to MTV, MuchMusic for at least a dozen years. The attempts to delete her entry seem to have little to do with the quality of the entry, but more about retaliation for her views on Gamergate controversy and problems with at least one persistent stalker has caused her entry here to be vandalized a number of times. (see article rev. history). farrellj (talk) 07:56, 10 January 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, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Liana K is clearly an established media personality in Canada, and certainly, there are plenty of existing articles on local radio and television personalities, who are generally considered to rise to the level of WP:NOTABLE. Article could use better sourcing, but as other commenters have noted, this is an endemic problem on Wikipedia. And please note: User:MBPLY, who has created this AFD, is a new and likely single-purpose account (note Special:Contributions/MBPLY) who has vandalized this article in several of their edits and left a link to an attack site. WP:BLP is pretty clear about this kind of thing. Concur with nixing this AFD per 302ET's recommendation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per all the policies already mentioned. The OP is an WP:SPA who seems to be trying to WP:RGW which is not a valid reason for this AFD. MarnetteD|Talk 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article doesn't even mention that she's married. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator is clearly WP:NOTHERE and asking for deletion solely due to the views of the subject they disagree with. Hosting multiple shows on national television clearly bestows notability on the subject. Nate (chatter) 03:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Snowball Keep Any statement I could make has already been covered. This was pretty clearly done out of spite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:10, 11 January 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. —Cryptic 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Metal Gear Online 3[edit]

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

Original research, since none of the references provided show any sign that the online multiplayer part of the upcoming video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain will be called Metal Gear Online 3. Metal Gear Online was an actual spin-off, also avaible separately from main game MGS4, if that happens later one, we can have an article for it in due time. Soetermans. T / C 20:09, 9 January 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) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge any sources that are notable. We don't even have a Metal Gear Online 2 article. If the apparently commonly abbreviated MGO3 doesn't appear under that name in any of the sources, then we can conclude that this article isn't the right place to put it. ~Mable (chat) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - No indication that the content in the article will indeed be called this. I'd argue for redirect, but I don't really think its a viable search term. Any content/sources could be used to flesh out its information at Phanton Pain though. But as long as it doesn't have a real name, and is largely sourced by first party twitter posts, it shouldn't be a standalone article. (Though I'm all for recreation down the line, it's just too soon at this time.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - the first Metal Gear Online was the online part of Subsistence, the Snake Eater expanded edition for the PlayStation 2. For MGS4 it was also called Metal Gear Online and released separately (which has its own article), the servers of which have shutdown in June 2012. Rrp13121989 (talk · contribs) linked the first Online to Snake Eater and changed the actual Metal Gear Online to 2 in the Metal Gear template, which I've reverted. While Kojima has stated Metal Gear Online is in development, it isn't clear whether this will be part of The Phantom Pain or released separately, but one thing is for sure: it won't be called Metal Gear Online 3. --Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The sourcing in this article is abysmal; there isn't even a source for the supposed name. This should be deleted. --TS 13:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sourced to primary source tweets—nothing to merge. No indication that "MGO3" is an official or even unofficial name, so it's not a useful redirect. The emphasis the nom puts on whether the game is actually called MGO3 doesn't matter so much as whether the topic would be notable by another name (article can always be renamed). Our main question is whether the topic is notable. Even so, it won't, and there are no important sources or text to merge. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackout Rugby[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:25, 8 January 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) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability. IMO 9,000 users for a game just don't warrant an article. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:44, 15 January 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 01:27, 16 January 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.

January 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 Assassin's Creed characters#Arno Dorian. Speedy close/legit supervote because I think redirection to the character list to be uncontroversial and a full AfD to be unecessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arno Dorian[edit]

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

Is a seperate page needed for this? Can it not be included in the main Assasin's Creed wiki? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Assassin's Creed. Submitter might also wish to AfD Francois De la Serre (mentioned in the Arno Dorian article).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: I will do so if this one is deleted. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 09:01, 5 January 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) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 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.

January 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne[edit]

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Entire page violates WP:Gamecruft and does not satisfy criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:LISTN and a lot more. Main article about the game covers in too much detail already. ansh666 08:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not only fails WP:LISTN, but would fail WP:GAMECRUFT as part of the parent article, so its not even worth a merge/redirect... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 5 January 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.