Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 20: Line 20:


{{VGDeletionday|2009|September|28}}
{{VGDeletionday|2009|September|28}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemu64}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NProtect GameGuard}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NProtect GameGuard}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blender game engine}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blender game engine}}

Revision as of 23:22, 28 September 2009

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/Archivesbox

Shortcut

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.


September 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu64

Nemu64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This program does not assert any sort of notability. The details are extremely trivial and the most the article can be is an advertisement for the program (though it's a free program). Basic details can be listed at List of video game console emulators. TTN (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect GameGuard

NProtect GameGuard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE non-notable software product which appears to be lacking in non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 merge to Game Blender. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blender game engine

Blender game engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources are a self-published wiki, and the article is structured like an advertisement. Mm40 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, article is an advertisement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- the engine is a subcomponent of Blender (software). HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to List of games containing time travel . Clearly redundant to each other, and the other list is the better article. Black Kite 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with time travel

AfDs for this article:
List of video games with time travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a "Category:Time travel video games" already exists. Also, there's a "List of games containing time travel" with similar content Garethfc (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to the categories. Sometimes, a list and category overlapping are fine, but this… nah. Too little non-list content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of games containing time travel is 10x better then this list, and makes this list redundant. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two lists. The "has a category" argument is wrong: Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of potentially providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Not just "sometimes", but "almost always" unless it's sos obscure nobody wants to bother making the list. The question is whichis the better list--personally, I see advantages in each: for locating a game or sorting by yearm the present one is much quicker to read. Of course, it's also less informative. It's an interesting question how the merits can be combined--possibly by a 4th column, description? DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list identified by Blake. There may be some games on this list that need to be mentioned on the redirect target, but Blake is right, the other is ten times better. Although I suppose this can provide information that the category doesn't, it's not useful information-- manufacturer and date of release have nothing to do with why these titles are on the list. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although having two lists is redundant neither of them contain everything they should. The population is large enough to support a separate list (IE this one), in which case fields like description, year and format are highly desirable because they're what separates lists from categories, having release years/dates also enables the table to be used as a chronology or alphabetical list with a single click. I subscribe to Games TM, the latest issue arrived @ 4 hours ago by post and it contains a six page feature on time travel in video games. Not only does it provide a solid preamble for a standalone list but it also splits games into two camps - games with time travel as a plot theme and those with it as a gameplay mechanic - the same as used on the larger list. The pieces are all there for something much better. Someoneanother 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge in relevant information from List of games containing time travel. There is enough information to support this list by itself in addition to the games list. Put a wikilink in the games list to this one. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of games containing time travel [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aids in navigation, plenty of blue links listed there. There are enough video games to fill this list on its own. If you combine it with other types of games, it'd get too crowded. So I say Keep, not merge. Dream Focus 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 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. JForget 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Birth

Hell's Birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for articles about future games six years before release: the time for an article will be after the game has been released and independent reviews show that it has become notable. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. JForget 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo 5 - Car List

Gran Turismo 5 - Car List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty sure that such list is against wikipedia policy. Not sure which one. SkyWalker (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. JForget 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DaedalusX64

DaedalusX64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the PROD: I have not been able to find any reliable sources that can provide any verifiable information for this emulator. Being heavily worked on, has "come a long way", or performs well doesn't assert notability. It needs reliable sources to establish that, but there's nothing out there (and I just did another search to make sure) beside forum postings and self-published entries from blogs. MuZemike 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 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 keep. MuZemike 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep

AfDs for this article:
Exploding sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be mainly a topic in video games. Exploding sheep, I am sure, make for notable visuals, but the topic in its own right is not notable. That a bunch of games have exploding sheep, and that there's a band called "Exploding Sheep," that doesn't make for a notable topic, and I note that the references contain only mentions of exploding sheep, not significant in-depth discussion of the concept and philosophy of exploding sheep. I do not believe this to be a cultural occurence of any importance, and have not seen any evidence of the cultural, social, or anthropological significance of this phenomenon, if indeed it is a phenomenon. While the existences or non-existence of other articles is not always relevant, I would like to point out to defenders of this wiki that Exploding house is not a notable topic, and anyone who has seen The Longest Day knows that houses explode as well as or better than sheep, and, in the movies and in video games, with much greater frequency. This suggests to me that the present article is little more than a convenient cover-up for those seeking an outlet for childhood and adult frustrations they believe to be incurred by exposure to these lovely, woolly creatures (or possibly lack thereof? had to settle for a dog or a cat?). Drmies (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: after looking over the previous AfD, I would suggest to editors that the mere occurence or mention of an exploding sheep is not enough to establish notability for this topic. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The fact that several independent groups have kept it, unlike my vote to delete the Donkey article means we should keep it. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as well. I mean sure it has happened in lots of games, and some of it is referenced, but it is notable? Anything can be blown up. Has a sheep ever blown up and killed somebody in real life? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or merge The article needs help, but the concept has been around long enough to have played a significant plot element in the novel Far From the Madding Crowd, written in 1874. If exploding sheep have been covered in media for 125 years, it's not just a videogame thing. The article could use a lot of expansion and work, but as a subject matter, its probably worth keeping around. As an alternative idea to deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, the article could be merged partially with Bloat, which is the actual medical problem leading to exploding sheep. --Jayron32 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its most certainly not a "cultural occurrence of any importance" but it seems to be a cultural theme significant enough for observation. Exploding houses are not as inherently as amusing; this is closer to the lines of More cowbell. --Milowent (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Exploding animal. Notable for sure, but a better place to put the material. A previous AfD has been rapidly withdrawn and merged Exploding toad within that same article. It seems to me that a robust article on these phenomena is better than a scattered collection of articles on single exploding animals. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable aspect of popular culture. Dream Focus 10:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is original synthesis (WP:SYN). Yes, there are citations to reliable sources showing that each game has an exploding sheep in them. But no, none of these sources show that there is any kind of meme here. Strip away the synthesis, and we basically have a "List of video games that include exploding sheep". Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marasmusine's argument should be considered by the aye-sayers above: sure there are plenty of sheep, but that those are cooler than exploding buildings doesn't make it a more suitable encyclopedic topic. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a reference that helps this topic be notable. Remember, this pedia of ours relies on reliable secondary information, and so for there is none to be found, only mentions of instances. If this were merged with Exploding animals, one could possibly get away with such original research (i.e., counting videogames with exploding sheep and counting exploding sheep in those games), but for a free-standing topic, we need more. Dream Focus, if this is such a notable aspect of popular culture (a rather vague and probably Western-centered statement--it probably discredits any culture not spending so much money on video games), can you produce a significant, in-depth discussion of the topic? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they're used this much in video games, they;re notable. There is a preconception here that significant memorable background elements in popular culture cannot be notable--agreed that their appearance in any one game isn;t enough for an individual article about that, but overall the element seems to be. The article properly avoids OR about what the appeal of this might be, but I wouldn;t be surprised if there were even sources for that. In fact, looking, there does seem to be one GScholar article that's relevant and could be added as an earlier example--and a discussion of the underlying humor behind that one. [8] . Looks like nobody on either side bothered actually checking, even though the GS hits are right at the top of the AfD. Sometimes I wonder at the quality of these discussions --we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia based on sources, and nobody looks at them even when it's arranged to be done automatically. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Some of the arguments presented during this AfD are confusing to say the least, but regardless, it appears that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trek73

AfDs for this article:
Trek73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per article talk page, there seems to be a lack of notability to support this article. The references given after the last AfD are pretty lacking, they simply describe the game as having been played in a university and by two people in particular. I checked (as per the article talk page) on Google, Googlebooks and Googlenews and could find nothing else other than personal websites on the game. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, but I would like it noted that I had searched and am not using this Afd for general article cleanup. Alastairward (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I was looking for were some reliable, third party sources, that provide more than trivial mention of the source material. There are a lot of fan sites certainly, I found those through the Google search that I performed already. Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the entire history of early computing is not available via Internet research. Journals and magazines of the 1970s and 1980s have not been fully indexed and made available on line though Google Books says Trek73 has a mention in one of the issues of Byte magazine from 1976.
The current on-line evidence of notability for Trek73, and games such as Adventure, is that there's continued fan interest 35 years later. One surprise is no one has written a recent RS article about how some of early computing devices and applications continue to attract interest today. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marc, regarding your point about internet research, two out of four "references" already given in the article are from books. The information seems to be out there about such games, in this case it just seems that there isn't anything significant about it to merit a non-trivial article in a reliable source. Don't you think that there might be something to your second paragraph, that there doesn't seem to be a recent RS article given the supposed continued interest? Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wouldn't this notability be reflected in more than a trivial mention? Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that the consensus view is that the references are trivial.--Kkmurray (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been told, but nobody has been kind enough to elaborate. As I said before, all that seems to be sure from the references, is that the game was worked upon by certain programmers and was popular in an American university. Surely if there's something more to be taken from them, you or the others building this consensus can simply state it? Why else would this have reached AfD? Alastairward (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that finding evidence of independent/reliable/secondary coverage from the 1973 to late 1970s period will be tough. One thought is Electronics (magazine) which was the "computer magazine" of the era. FWIW, a rewrite of the game may qualify as WP:GNG coverage if the independent sources show the developers put a great deal of effort in faithful duplication of the algorithms or other aspects. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my main complaint when writing about early computer history. I call it "the internet black hole". Many topics that would be trivially easy to document today due to widespread internet presence and archiving went undocumented in the past because dead trees cost more money. And in the 70's it was considerably more expensive to publish than it is today, even in the same format. It's a bit sad that so much great history is locked up behind the paywalls of people like the IEEE and ACM and are unlikely to ever be set free. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That era is hardly unique. People did not stop documenting their experiences on pieces of dead plants just because there were new media available. We have many articles on subjects contemporary to that period which do not rely on first-hand accounts from students of the period in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the point about the number of ports from above, I can identify ten: Precursor $SPACE (Char, 1973), HP2000 BASIC TREK73 (Char, Perry, Lee, and Gee, 1973),[12] LHS BASIC version (Perkins, 1974), C Port (Pare, 1984), C Port (Williams, 1984), Combined Pare/Williams C port (Okamoto, Yee, 1985),[13] DOS Lattice C (Soussan, 1985), Turbo Pascal (Chu, 1985),[14] C/Curses version (Chu, 1990),[15] FreeBSD Port (Dillon, 1999).[16] --Kkmurray (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, this "internet black hole", is simply irrelevant. You have decided yourself that there is a great deal of history to this game, if only someone would produce a significant article on it in a reliable third party publication. That's just your own OR, if such a publication does not exist, even if you think it should, then that's that really. Notability has not been supplied, wishing hard that it should does nothing for this article. Alastairward (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The games are utterly unrelated in every possible way except their name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, may I ask if you would clarify please? You seem to be essentially saying that it's notable, but we can't cite that notability. That's the crux of the reason for the AfD, if it's so "darn notable" where's the cite? Alastairward (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. WP:N is a fine guidepost for what makes a subject notable--If there is significant coverage in RSes, it's notable and otherwise not. But it is a guideline, and not policy, for a reason. Sometimes the guideline is wrong. Here we have a topic that is important from a computer games history viewpoint but that isn't a topic covered very well by RSes. So we be _darn_ sure we are meeting WP:V and write the best article we can because we believe the topic is notable in the dictionary definition meaning "worthy of note" even if it doesn't meet the goalpost set by WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an article deleted that I believed was notable and had similar sources to back it up. I've had articles deleted or merged that other users have been adamant were notable. None of which matter since nobody could provide sources to prove they really were notable. Nobody has done so for this article, all we have in essence is the word of the editors here. Assuming good faith is all well and good, but we can't include things on someone's promise alone. You might very well point out that this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, why not have an article on everything? Well, that would pretty much open the flood gates to so many articles that we couldn't spend the time to verify what we're adding. To counter what you said, I say that the twin goals of notable articles backed up by verified sources are worth maintaining and this article just doesn't cut it. All we can say from the sources for sure is that it was a university project and really that's it. Alastairward (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can verify that it was felt to be an important project years ago. And yes, we trust editor's opinions. That's why we have discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sticking point, we can't verify anything other than the opinion of fans online and while it's good to know other editors are being honest, that's not the bar for the inclusion of material in Wikipedia. We have discussions not just to provide opinions, but to provide opinions on the material being added and how it can be verified and proved to be notable. Alastairward (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to add Category:Wikipedians who have played Trek73? :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More OR? Simply remembering the game does not constitute a reliable source nor does it supply notability. Alastairward (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate questions here. A) Does this meet WP:N and B) does this meet WP:V. I think we have near consensus that this doesn't meet WP:N but should be kept anyways (WP:IAR if you want a rule for that, but WP:N is a guideline and not policy for a reason). Are you arguing past that and saying we can't verify the existence of the game or anywhere near enough stuff to be able to make a decent stub? Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. WP:NOTABILITY can be trumped if editors explain themselves well enough. A mitigating factor is the age of this game - and the editors! - which makes it harder to find reliable sources, though contemporary computer magazines will almost certainly have covered it. The game is obviously popular, which can sometimes act as a guide in lieu of significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's not a precedent I want to see set often. Fences&Windows 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 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 delete. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117

Gl-117 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. There seems to be broad agreement here that the topic does not meet notability guidelines. If there is consensus to merge at a later time, the content can be restored. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Online

Tera Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Product not released yet. No proof of notability. Not much in Google. No independent references. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources presented or coming from a search, WP:N has not been passed. No concrete details are available at this time and there is no basis for an article at this time; that may change in the future closer to its release. Someoneanother 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The release is 2010 and has been announced. I will edit the article to reflect more information but at the time of creation the information was hazy. Now there is more concrete information about this upcoming game and you can keep watch on this article to make sure I add more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianallison (talk • contribs)

Thanks for trying to improve things but without significant coverage in independent reliable sources it is not going to pass the notability criteria even if it is well written. What you can do, if it gets deleted, is request a copy be put in your user space. That way you can keep a copy and maybe bring it back as an article once the game is released if there is significant coverage then. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 merge to Blizzard Entertainment. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fitch Jr

Bob Fitch Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that he is notable per WP:BIO. No WP:GHITS. One external reference in the article is an automated, impersonal listing of his games and the other includes him in a discussion of one of the games—he himself isn't a topic of the interview. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I shall try and find a more suitable source, but will understand if the article is deleted.LordNatonstan (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. WP:V is core policy; if the existence of a novel cannot be verified, it has no place in Wikipedia. The "keep" comments do not address this problem and are discounted in this closure.  Sandstein  05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-COM: UFO Defense (Russian novel)

X-COM: UFO Defense (Russian novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability for this Russian-only novel is quite weak. Remurmur (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with UFO:Enemy Unknown, or with X-COM. And delete all the plot/differences from the game minutiae, it's overly detailed and non-notable. To address comments above: the notability of this novel is not established within the article, and it therefore fails WP:N - and more importantly, WP:BK, which asks for a significantly higher standard of notability. The information in the article might, however, be of interest to those researching the specific game the novel is based on or the franchise as a whole and therefore may have a place on those pre-existing pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find nothing resembling a reliable source for this, WP:V isn't satisfied let alone WP:N. No prejudice against reinstatement if it can be sources, but I can't support a merge as there's no sources to verify it, it's not clear if this is even an ordinary novel or a work of fan fiction, if it's the latter then there would be zero need to mention it unless it was notable. Someoneanother 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds of verifiability. ISBN? Publisher? Vladimir Vasilyev is a fan fiction writer, so was this perhaps self-published? The bulk of the article, a comparison between the story and the game, appears to be original research. Find a reliable citation, and perhaps the novel can be mentioned in the UFO: Enemy Unknown article itself. Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 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 nomination withdrawn, deletion discussion overtaken by editing of the article. Closing without prejudice against the nomination of the new article for deletion.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3D Video games

3D Video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely made up original research and would have to be rewritten almost entirely. It also fails to define what is a 3D game being substantially different from just 3D graphics inside a game. In aiddition there is no reason to note the that the term 3D game is used for such games given the limited number the article lists as it fails verifiability from any independant third-party source. Google search results show just the opposite - 3D video game is often used to for the the way in-game graphics look. 陣内Jinnai 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Right now the article seems to simply a list of of games, but such a list would be endless and determining objective criteria for inclusion would be impossible. There might be a case for a more technical article, describing 3D modeling, motion capture, collision detection, etc., but that material probably exists elsewhere already.--RDBury (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be a category. BUC (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misunderstood the premise of the article. As you said, a different title would have been better. In any case, there still doesn't seem to be any actual article there, hence my not being able to tell what it's supposed to be about. I suggest that any actual content for this subject could be added to Stereoscopy until there is enough to split into a different article.--RDBury (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails core policies with some controversial claims.陣内Jinnai 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I know there are at least 3 people proposing deletion but no discussion was made since the bot fixed the bug and listed the AFD so I will relist it so more people get a chance to participate. JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow, when I skimmed the discussion above I thought we were talking about an article with some kind of actual content. This is just 17 meaningless words followed by a short meaningless table. There's nothing here of even mild value. Propaniac (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename it to List of games made in RealD Cinema. Or List of games that require glasses to be seen in 3D. Since the term 3D is used in games to mean something totally different, most games these days labeled 3D as opposed to isometric, etc. at a glance some might be confused. We need to clarify this in the article, and perhaps a rename. Are there other systems out there which allow games to be made in 3D? Didn't Sony Playstation 3 have some sort of holographic thing for one of its games? Dream Focus 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=316781829"