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

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of games represented in the Super Smash Bros. series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely massive list that just consists of trivial facts (WP:GAMECRUFT; WP:NOTCATALOG). I tried to boldly merge into the characters in the Super Smash Bros. series list but was reverted by the article's creator, so I'm taking it here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in the WP:VGSCOPE. Probably appropriate for SmashWiki, if not already documented there. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the inappropriate content section of the video game Manual of Style, specifically #7 in the section. This is definitely a fancrufty article that is superfluous to the kind of content we host here. That said-- it's surprisingly well-created content by Insertinternethere which just really should exist at a Wikia site instead. I really hope that they continue to edit Wikipedia and learn from this experience instead of experiencing frustration from it. Nomader (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there was definitely a lot of effort put into this, it's simply not a fit for Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unencyclopedic. Please transfer to a wikia, if it didn’t already originate from there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article showcases the impact of the Super Smash Bros. series as a whole. The article shows how ever expanding the Super Smash Bros. games are and how many franchises they have touched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Oinkers42) (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admire all the work that was obviously put into this page but I fail to see the specific relevance that all this information is supposed to attach to. Delete Nevermore27 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is already covered in the Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series. There aren't so many entries that you couldn't sum this up in there or in the main article. Jontesta (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - I'm not even sure if the particular topic of video game representation is notable on its own to warrant its own list. It might be, but the bigger problem is the ridiculously unnecessary amount of detail that was put into the thing as a whole; it looks like something from a magazine or a Wikia page and it flies in the face of WP:VGSCOPE. This article was recently created (about a week ago), so there aren't a lot of revisions to go through; I checked each major revision (which, of about 29 revisions on the page, there are only 2-3 significant ones) and none of them pass VGSCOPE. I see in this particular diff that the article author tried to trim down the amount of detail by removing some of the item entries and synthetizing the topics instead, but the entire article is still far too detailed. I applaud the creator's effort that they put into the article, but this is just completely out of scope of an encyclopedia. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A huge collection of trivia and fandom analysis, violating WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE if not anything else. Gaioa (T C L) 13:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a massive amount of trivia -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (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 redirect to List of Cobra characters#Voltar. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voltar (G.I. Joe)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources currently in the article are all primary - an official GI Joe book and the comics themselves. A WP:BEFORE search brings up unreliable sources and passing mentions in GI Joe books that may or may not be independent from the publishers of the comics. A merge to anywhere would likely creating WP:UNDUE coverage of Voltar. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Cobra characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cobra characters#Voltar. I added a description of the character there, so there is no longer a reason to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cobra characters#Voltar per Devonian Wombat. As most of the information on this article is not reliably source, the bit that they added to the main character list is sufficient coverage for the character. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cobra characters#Voltar per Devonian Wombat. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Knight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable video game, gameplay section reads a bit like a tutorial?   Kadzi   (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:VGSE drags up nothing, and there are actually many tongue-in-cheek references to various departing "Knights". All besides the King's Quest chapter. --Izno (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LunarLux

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially unremarkable video game, some google activity but very little.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Zero hits via the WP:VG/SE search engine apart from this database (read: un-authored) entry and no independent sources through Google. I was going to say that COI is likely, but the user has also created articles for several other non-notable games that might need to be discussed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would rather tend toward WP:TOOSOON deletion here until release, as I acknowledge there are no extent reliable sources at this time. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2020 (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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Soldiers (eSports Organization)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable esports organization. No significant showings in major events, only coverage I could find in esports coverage sites with editorial control (Dot, ESPN, etc.) was this article about their players leaving and this sponsored profile. The rest of the results were passing mentions, generally in the context of ex-players. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been more articles of Dot about Space Soldiers, 8 to be exact: https://dotesports.com/news/tag/space-soldiers

Including this one which is about their win in a DreamHack tournament: https://dotesports.com/counter-strike/news/space-soldiers-win-dreamhack-austin-2018-csgo-24323

The Wikipedia page has been updated many times by multiple people after the nomination and now features a lot more information than the original article and there are more things that I am planning to add further this month when I have the time. Styyx (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A win in a single tournament doesn't really make them any more notable than finishing third or something. Also, they only seem to be reported on by a single publication (Dot Esports), which is not a good look. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Space Soldiers has won more tournaments.

ESEA MDL Season 25 Global Challenge: https://www.hltv.org/events/3046/esea-season-25-mdl-global-challenge

ELEAGUE Major 2018 European Minor: https://www.hltv.org/events/3251/europe-minor-eleague-major-2018

Runner-Up at WESG 2017, only losing to 4 time Major Champion on the final map: https://www.hltv.org/events/3112/wesg-2017-world-finals

About coverage from eSport sites, here are a few:

HLTV.org: https://www.hltv.org/news/21957/space-soldiers-win-eu-minor-final-after-defeating-envyus-2-0

dbltap.com: https://www.dbltap.com/posts/6162417-ngin-to-miss-faceit-london-major-after-failing-to-acquire-a-visa

Hürriyet: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-growing-esports-community-crowned-by-new-venue-140609 Styyx (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough sources to pass WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a lot more will be added to this discussion as nobody has edited for over a week. Styyx (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (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. Sandstein 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy laugh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:N. Topic is not notable, and the only reference is based on a personal blog. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even remotely notable, and too trivial to be featured anywhere as a redirect. Delete per WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2020 (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. Consensus is that the article subject is notable. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Legends

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly formatted, with description focused primarily on the game at the expense of the rest of the article. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I think WP:TNT applied here and should have been WP:G11 deleted, as the article was completely promotional at that point [1]. I found few sources where it was covered beyond trivial or routine mentions in WP:VG/RS and some sources with Wiki articles, like Pocket Gamer [2], Engadget [3], Slide to Play [4], Gamezebo [5] , Forbes [6] (while written by a contributor, the reviewer is now an editor at Game Informer, which adds to reliability), a paragraph in Svet Kompjutera [7], Tech in Asia [8]. There would need to be some discussion about Modojo, but since its owned by the same network as Shacknews that is deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS, I'd consider it reliable as well [9]. It passes WP:GNG overall. I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT deletion, since there is nothing here to salvage right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search led to four in-depth reviews from reliable sources (which I have added to the article). SIGCOV in RS'es is the GNG benchmark against which article subjects are assessed and this one passes English Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:11, 16 June 2020 (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 redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. As a compromise between delete and merge, both of which are advocated here. Editors can figure out whether or what to merge from the history. Sandstein 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Famicom Box

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, which is for a very obscure Japanese video game console model, does not meet the notability criteria. Its two sources are unreliable, and there was nothing I could find via reliable, third-party sources that could make it establish notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, or maybe merge with Super Nintendo Entertainment System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittac (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm noticing an absurd amount of impersonating sockpuppets trying to defend this article, all of which have been reverted and globalled. Hopefully this will end soon, because it's honestly getting ridiculous. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It seems notable enough for a mention or section in the regular SNES article, but probably not enough in it's current state for a separate article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (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 Success (company). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QP (video game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As the article states, this game was cancelled before release. All coverage appears to either be routine promotional press or speculation in less-than-reliable blogs and forums. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGSE draws a blank. You do need to describe an adequate BEFORE analysis given that this was to have been published before widespread use of the Internet. Neo Geo Freak appears to have covered it (Japanese, not sure how advertisment-esque) in issues 22-25 (especially 22); Gamest in issue 199. (Scans online.) Is this what you found when you say "routine promotional press"? --Izno (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not notable, this has an obvious redirect target at Success (company). --Izno (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Japanese and Spanish-language articles linked (which I was able to read, more thoroughly with the latter than the former), appear to all be promotional pre-release coverage. Given the circumstances of the game's cancellation, there's really no reason to expect more, higher-quality sources to exist. I don't think that the redirect is preferable to deletion, because the game is not listed at that page and due to it never having been released there's a solid argument against adding it to that list. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely rare to have a woman project manager for a game (especially a 20 year old Japanese game) though, right? The game might be notable in a way not covered by the sources. Although when I look up 伊藤しのぶ all I can see is that she was a graphic artist for Cotton. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Success (company) as a viable alternative to deletion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:38, 13 June 2020 (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2D Con

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a fair amount of routine coverage, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage with actual independent analysis of the subject. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGSE doesn't find anything here. --Izno (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 06:18, 31 May 2020 (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. Sandstein 17:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1964 (emulator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An old emulation project that (according to its GitHub page) has been abandoned sixteen years ago. All sources but "Emulator Zone" presently used in the article are primary (a relevant tag was added nine years ago), so I did a WP:BEFORE:

The Emulator Zone source only has a passing mention of the project among many others in the same category and links to an equally brief overview site with a download link.
In terms of reliable sources, I was only able to find a passing mention in this 2009 list of emulators by German magazine GameStar, with the same list cross-posted to sister site GamePro in 2012.
There is another passing mention in this list by Lifehacker that only spans one sentence. Although the reliability of Lifehacker has not been assessed, it is part of the same network as some other reliable sources like Kotaku, so I'm including it here for documentation.
The Internet Archive has no results and Google Scholar's only hit is this. Although I cannot access the full text, the abstract suggests that it primarily includes Wikipedia-sourced content.

Overall, I am seeing a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore a lack of notability. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, warranting deletion. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't investigated this topic, but my compliments to the nominator for nicely laying out their source searches and arguments for deletion. If other nominators took the same care in their nominations, AfD would be a happier place. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked for sources as well and this doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's excellent analysis of the sources, and my lack of finding anything else upon searches, indicates that this defunct emulation project does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (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. With the finding of additional sources, there now appears to be a consensus that the character has self-standing notability Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel (The Last of Us)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not demonstrate notability in any way. The "Character development and design" section is copied directly from Development of The Last of Us; "Attributes" has no useful or notable information; "Appearance" is just plot straight from List of The Last of Us characters; and "Reception" is copied directly from The Last of Us#Reception and is only about his relationship with another character, not him as an individual (with an extra listicle on "sexy video game characters"). Fellow game character Ellie has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability, but the same cannot be said about Joel, and his coverage is best left at the characters article. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Last of Us, this feels a bit like WP:FANCRUFT dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Rhain:, I noticed you created the article on Ellie which is now a GA article. Both characters received the same amount of coverage and awards. Both pass WP:GNG, is covered by multiple reliable sources, and has similar influence on gaming culture. Joel article could be massively expanded and pass GA. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having researched the game, its development, and reception, I can confidently say that Joel has not received the same amount of coverage (or awards) as Ellie, nor has he had the same impact on gaming culture. There’s a reason I’ve never split the article myself for the topic; the character is simply not notable enough. – Rhain ☔ 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on secondary reliable sources, having the exact same level of coverage is not a requirement. In most of the sources which mention Ellie, Joel is mentioned as well, for example in this Game Informer source Joel is mentioned:

“

The Last of Us tells the story of Joel, a taciturn smuggler, and Ellie, a brash young girl. They are brought together by chance in the months following a global epidemic that has killed millions and left thousands of others wandering the country as sightless, feral "infected.

This duo's journey starts with a simple transaction. In exchange for a cache of weapons, Joel and his partner Tess are tasked with delivering Ellie to a group of revolutionary survivalists who believe she holds the key to a possible cure for the disease. It ends with one of the most complex conclusions I've ever seen in a game. In between, you experience a survival adventure that features both quiet beauty and brutal violence in abundance.

Though Joel and Ellie's journey is grim, it remains rooted in one of the most poignant, well-drawn relationships I've seen in video games. The light, campy quality of the Uncharted series causes some to overlook Naughty Dog's brilliance at creating realistic, believable dialogue. Using its skill in service of The Last of Us's somber tale, the studio created another high mark for interactive storytelling. As Joel and Ellie's relationship grows, we come to know them as friends, giving each fight to save their lives real weight.

”

Joel was nominated for "British Academy Video Games Awards" British Academy Games Award for Performer and Golden Joystick Awards for Best Moment, "Joel's loss". The character won Spike Video Game Awards's Best Voice Actor for Troy Baker. This character undisputedly passes out GNG guidelines and with the second game being release this character will only receive further coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that the character had to have the "exact same level of coverage", but Joel doesn't even come close to the GNG, in my opinion. In most of the sources to which you refer, including the one you've quoted and highlighted, the discussion is about the relationship between Joel and Ellie; there is not enough independent coverage on Joel as an individual character to warrant a separate article. As for awards, I should clarify that Troy Baker won 1/3 notable awards for his role as Joel, compared to Ellie/Ashley Johnson's 5/5 (not that awards are too significant a demonstration of notability anyway). – Rhain ☔ 14:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search demonstrates many sources which puts this well above GNG. Wikipedia really needs to stop its love affair with trying to delete every single character article that isn't in perfect shape, it seriously damages the site and I'm seeing it a tons recently.★Trekker (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: Google searches are not the best demonstration of notability. Pretty much every source refers to him, but next to none are really about him. I’ve researched this topic for years (excuse my big head, but I’ve worked on an FA, two FLs, and five GAs in this topic) and there simply isn’t enough information about Joel to maintain a separate article. I’ve not nominated this article because it’s “not perfect”, it’s because (besides some copy-editing), the article is in its best and fullest state: there’s not enough coverage of the character for any more expansion, and in this state, it does not demonstrate notability. And trust me, I’m certainly not interested in targeting every character article—I worked for months trying to convince other editors that List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters should stay, not to mention my work on this, this, and this—but this character should not have his own article. – Rhain ☔ 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This character has received significant coverage as one of the primary characters in a game widely regarded as among the greatest of all time.

Condense massive list for page readability. ——Serial^# 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The Last Of Us Part II: 'A game about bad people doing bad things to survive'". BBC. 2019-09-25.

The article notes:

It's been six years since Ellie and Joel adventured across a post-apocalyptic America in the hugely successful game The Last Of Us.
"It wasn't just another game about zombies, it's about humans and people - and ultimately the relationship at its core between Joel and Ellie.
She's still burned from how Naughty Dog stayed vague about Joel and Ellie's relationship before the release of the original game, and what the characters were on the road to achieve.

Myers, Maddy (2020-06-01). "The Last of Us Part 2 co-writer: 'There are no heroes or villains'". Polygon.

The article notes:

Unlike the first The Last of Us, which focused primarily on Joel’s journey as a father who lost his daughter and then formed an unlikely bond with the teenage Ellie, The Last of Us Part 2 predominantly focuses on Ellie’s perspective. Now she is the one making hard choices, the one to whom the player needs to be able to relate. I asked Gross if the team had any concerns about this game focusing less on Joel and more on Ellie. As players who have completed the first The Last of Us know, the game concludes with Joel telling a lie to Ellie. It’s a lie that forces the player, and perhaps also Joel, to question whether the violence that just transpired was necessary or right. It makes sense, then, that guilt hangs over every moment of The Last of Us Part 2. It’s baked into the combat design, as Ellie decides moment to moment whether to hide or to engage in combat. But, in the grand scheme, there is no choice for Ellie. She’s pulled into a larger-than-life conflict simply because of who she is, a scrappy queer teen who just so happens to be immune to the virus that has destroyed society.

Vincent, Brittany (2020-05-19). "The Last of Us Part 2 brings pulse-pounding adventure to PS4 this June, and you can preorder it right now". CNN.

The article notes:

This summer, you can dive back into another world that's been brought to its knees by a pandemic: a post-apocalyptic vision of the United States following the rise of a mutated strain of the Cordyceps fungus. While the first game introduced rugged survivor Joel, who came into contact with a scrappy young woman named Ellie, the sequel is set five years after the events of the first game. Joel and Ellie have moved to Wyoming, and Ellie has grown into a wiser teenager who isn't afraid to fight for her survival. When she comes into contact with a mysterious Christian cult, she must take arms to protect the ones she loves -- and the way of life she's come to know.

Hood, Vic (2020-06-01). "Hands on: The Last of Us 2 review". TechRadar.

The article notes:

The Last of Us 2 has big shoes to fill. Not only was its predecessor critically acclaimed, but fans became emotionally invested in the fate of protagonists Ellie and Joel - a testament to developer Naughty Dog's emotive storytelling. Perhaps our favorite improvement is to the upgrade system. Where The Last of Us saw Joel collecting supplements to improve specific abilities, The Last of Us 2 offers different skill branches, allowing you to use supplements to upgrade specific branches of abilities such as stealth, precision and explosives. You can unlock new branches by finding training manuals.

Suellentrop, Chris (2013-06-14). "In the Same Boat, but Not Equals". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-02.

The article notes:

You can see why people really like the game. The animation is nearly photorealistic. The characters’ eyes are full of life and emotion, with none of the vacancy gamers so often confront. Their eyes give Joel and Ellie, the two characters that the player spends the most time with, a weight and a reality that surpass all other video game characters.
The Last of Us aspires to be an interactive, mixed-company version of “The Road,” in this case the story of the relationship between an older man and a 14-year-old girl as they try to survive in an oppressive and deadly wasteland. Almost throughout, however, it is actually the story of Joel, the older man. This is another video game by men, for men and about men.
Ellie is such an appealing and unusual video game character — an Ellen Page look-alike voiced expertly by the 29-year-old Ashley Johnson — that at one point I found myself rooting for Joel to die so that The Last of Us would become her game, a story about a lost young girl instead of another look inside the plight of her brooding, monosyllabic father figure. To my surprise, the game almost relented.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the character Joel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The strongest source is the latter from 2013 a NYT source giving Joel extensive coverage. There are several more sources from NYT and LAT. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: With all due respect, none of those sources demonstrate significant coverage of the character in question. The first one simply mentions "Joel and Ellie's relationship" without any significant discussion about Joel. The second seems to specifically emphasise why Joel is less important in the second game. The third and fourth simply mention him by name, that's it. The fifth seems to have one useful sentence—"This is another video game by men, for men and about men"—but ultimately (and explicitly) shows why Joel is significantly less notable than Ellie. You're right in saying that these are reliable sources, but they are most certainly not "significant coverage". I'm yet to read anything significant about this character. – Rhain ☔ 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an edge case between meeting and failing WP:GNG. I know a sizeable portion of Joel's reception is his relationship with Ellie but I do not think that would constitute the topic being WP:INHERITED. I think the best course of action will be to redirect this back to List of The Last of Us characters and put this back to draft. Subsequently, after the launch of the sequel, given its extensive media coverage already, the topic will more easily be able to satisfy GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list. The sources listed above and in the article do not assert the character's independent notability from the game. The article effectively operates as a coat rack for trivia that is sufficiently covered in the existing parent article, character list, and summary style Development article. Not seeing enough Reception/impact to warrant the split. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list. I have to remind myself that it's important to read the article and check the references instead of measuring them in inches. Much of this article isn't directly about the subject, and already covered elsewhere. The relationship between the characters is really better covered at a character list. Yes, there are arguably two lead characters in the game, but it's really the other one that's become notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the game may well be widely regarded as among the greatest of all time, but notability is not inherited, and this particular character has received insufficient coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources to justify an independent article. Czar's reasoning, as well as the analysis from Rhain, is wholly convincing. ——Serial^# 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Banks, Jaime; Mejia, Robert; Adams, Aubrie (2017). "Joel". 100 Greatest Video Game Characters. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4422-7813-4. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Cruea, Mark (2018). "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us". In Taylor, Nicholas; Voorhees, Gerald (eds.). Masculinities in Play. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 93–108. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90581-5_6. ISBN 978-3-319-90581-5. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Voorhees, Gerald (2014-09-03). "Mourning Sex". First Person Scholar. University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Murray, Soraya (June 2019). "Playing Whiteness in Crisis in The Last of Us and Tomb Raider". Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association. 4 (3). Digital Games Research Association. ISSN 2328-9422. Archived from the original on 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Serrels, Mark (2013-07-03). "Joel Is The Last Of Us". Kotaku. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Reeves, Brianna (2019-03-14). "Our Favorite Characters: Joel and Morality in The Last of Us". PlayStation LifeStyle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Cheeda, Saim (2019-10-10). "The Last Of Us: 10 Best Joel Quotes". Game Rant. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.

Sources with quotes

Banks, Jaime; Mejia, Robert; Adams, Aubrie (2017). "Joel". 100 Greatest Video Game Characters. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4422-7813-4. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
Joel is the anti-hero protagonist and principal player character of Naughty Dog's The Last of Us (TLOU), a video game about post-apocalyptic America. A tough and rugged individualist, he is a hardened survivor of a pandemic that struck twenty years ago. To survive in this world, he has become a smuggler of medicine and weapons. Surprisingly, Joel's enemies are not so much the infected but his fellow human survivors who fight over scarce resources and territory. Paradoxically, the infected are not as monstrous as the other human survivors, making Joel's story a tale of what it means to be human in an inhuman role. ...
... Joel's character assumes significance for his anti-heroism that is constellated around resisting the commodification of humans. His character destabilizes our notions of love, community, and morality to explore the limits of our humanity in a dystopian world.
Cast as an archetypal, flawed anti-hero obsessed with self-preservation, Joel resonates for many of us who likewise put a high premium on self-interest. He wins the gamer's sympathies because he lives while his loved ones have died. To assuage guilt requires redemptive mortification, as argued by Kenneth Burke. Joel's mortification comes in the form of living the life of a survivor who fights the zombie-like infected yet is a virtual zombie himself—dead within. Thus Joel's character points us to a part of a person's life that may have become desensitized or lifeless due to personal trauma or alienation. ...
Paradoxically, failing humanity is Joel's act of self-redemption. Joel redeems himself by holding on to someone dear to him and abandoning the broader cause of humanity's cure. Thus, Joel's character animates the conflict between ethics and criminality but also the classic tension between self-interest and the common good, reminding us of the constant, "dualist" tendencies in human nature. By saving Ellie's life, Joel is also saving himself. True to his mantra, "No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for," he hangs on to Ellie as his raison d'être after losing all else precious to him. In the end, Joel's defiance of the commodification of Ellie, wanted and prized for her brain, is his ultimate act of heroism and redemption.
Cruea, Mark (2018). "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us". In Taylor, Nicholas; Voorhees, Gerald (eds.). Masculinities in Play. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 93–108. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90581-5_6. ISBN 978-3-319-90581-5. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The book notes:
In many ways, Joel is a complicated character and his life experiences and circumstances shape who he is. During the opening series with his daughter Sarah, Joel most closely embodies the nurturing version of the New Man and correspondingly, the New Father. While this segment of the game is fairly short, we see Joel as a single father who is closely attached to his daughter. There is an emotional connection between the two that is evident as Sarah lovingly gives Joel the gift of a watch, a gift that he keeps as a memento long after it has stopped working. Reflecting the key Nurturing New Man and New Father characteristics, Joel is sensitive, caring, and emotionally engaged with Sarah, and as a single parent, he is responsible for the home and childcare.
Twenty years later, Joel is a changed man. Unfortunately, the change is regressive as his actions are more symbolic of the Old Man and Old Father. He is gruff. He uses violence to solve his issues, and upon meeting Ellie and hearing the request to escort her, he is very reluctant. The only way that Tess convinces Joel to take the job is by convincing him that Ellie is simply cargo; Joel views Ellie as a means to an economic end; she is just another job. He is also unconcerned with his appearance, which is in direct contrast to what he looked like at the beginning of the game. Other characteristics that tie to the Old Man/Father include Joels strength of body, aggressiveness, strong heterosexuality as evidenced by his relationship with Tess and his emotional distance from others.
However, as the game progresses, the relationship between Joel and Ellie transforms. Eventually, Joel begins to use terms of endearment with Ellie that had been previously reserved for Sarah. For example, at the beginning of the game when he first tucks Sarah in at night and then later when Sarah is dying, he calls Sarah his "baby girl." Further into the game after Ellie has killed David, Joel comes to her aid and calls Ellie "baby girl." He uses the term once more when rescuing Ellie from the hospital. The decision to make such a connection through language was a small, but important, rhetorical device for Naughty Dog, symbolizing that Joel now regards Ellie as his own child. The care that Joel shows is quite emblematic of the New Father, and this care is communicated through his tenderness and loving words. However, Joels character doesn't fit the New Man/Father completely. Since Joel consistently takes away Ellies agency, he partially embodies the Old Man/Father by using force or deception to control Ellie. He also effectively annihilates all presence of a mother by killing Marlene near the end of the game. As well, Joel fails to truly nurture Ellie in ways that help prepare her for life without him. Instead, he unfailingly serves as protector. In many ways, the Joel that appears at the end of the game is a mixture of the Joel at the beginning as New Father and in the middle, as Old Father.
Voorhees, Gerald (2014-09-03). "Mourning Sex". First Person Scholar. University of Waterloo. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Heroic Masculinity: Selfish Joel

In The Last of Us Joel's masculinity is at stake. The question is not whether Joel is a man, or even whether or not he is manly. Rather, the problem that some players and commentators confront is that Joel acts in a manner that betrays the kinds of heroic masculinity that American society typically valorizes. ...
For the first nine-tenths of the game Joel perfectly embodies the parameters of heroic masculinity. He excels at his chosen occupation and exercises paternalistic control over his (surrogate) family. He is strong and capable of committing violence, breaking laws as readily as he breaks arms. However, one precept of heroic masculinity Joel spectacularly fails to exemplify is the notion that 'real men' are heroes who are willing to sacrifice in order to do the 'right thing.'
...
To accept this or, more radically, to adopt the perspective that Joel is a villain, (discussed here, here and here, among other places,) is melancholic. For players holding onto the notion of heroic masculinity, what Joel does is unacceptable and his offense against heroic masculinity must be witnessed and tried in the court of public opinion. True, gender is not explicitly evoked in Joels condemnation, but its more than naïve to think that Joel's excoriation just coincidentally occurs along the lines of his violation of gender norms.
To describe Joel as an antihero, flawed but redeemable, is to mourn. Yes, at the end Joel takes on stereotypically feminine traits and role. So be it. Heroic masculinity is a construct and Joel's violation of the precepts of heroic masculinity do not make him a villain or a "broken man." They make Joel human — more human than the broken conception of manhood American culture celebrates.
Murray, Soraya (June 2019). "Playing Whiteness in Crisis in The Last of Us and Tomb Raider". Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association. 4 (3). Digital Games Research Association. ISSN 2328-9422. Archived from the original on 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
It tells the story of Joel, a white working man and single parent, and his pale, slight, blond daughter, Sarah, with whom he has a close relationship. It is clear that Joel has long, strenuous workdays, and is under duress—he is not well-off and is clearly represented as doing his best despite the odds. ...
While it is immediately clear that Joel is resourceful and jaded enough to address his circumstances pragmatically, he (as the playable character) is clearly traumatized and endangered. His look and manner are consistent with mainstream representations of a "heartland" American male: presumed straight, Caucasian, shortish dark hair and beard, assertive carriage, able-bodied, and wearing a western-style shirt and jeans. He doesn't talk much, and is acerbic when he does.
...
The impossible, imperiled position of whiteness is embodied in Joel, the bedraggled protagonist and primary playable character of The Last of Us. He is self-consciously normal and "everyman" in his manifestation, possessing neither superhuman powers nor the skills of a supersoldier. He is vulnerable, emotionally shut down and compromised, definitively an anti-hero. At some point in the narrative, his young partner, Ellie, takes on the protector/provider role after he is seriously injured.
...
Joel is in many ways a cypher for the so-called American average hardworking man, come to the end of his rope and emptied out of his inherent value in a society that has changed around him. ...
Teetering at the mouth of this gaping emptiness, Joel of The Last of Us demonstrates a similar disorientation, but it comes in the form of a deathward-looking melancholia that is staved off for the purpose of protecting Ellie against a hostile environment.
Serrels, Mark (2013-07-03). "Joel Is The Last Of Us". Kotaku. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Joel is the protagonist of The Last Of Us and he is old. His hair is ragged and greasy, flecked with gray; his skin pallid and wrinkled. Joel doesn't kill with the youthful exuberance of a half-tucked Nathan Drake, or the lumbering ultra violence of Marcus Fenix. Joel must stand still or he won't make his shots. Joel needs time to heal himself. Joel must hide and creep. Joel says little but bears the weight of those he has killed, the terrible things he has seen and done.
Decades ago; you imagine a sprightlier Joel. He carries a lighter conscience. Killing comes easy. Joel might have been Nathan Drake or Marcus Fenix in a past life. He might have been Master Chief, a silent killing machine with zero empathy or remorse. He might have been. But now, today, as the PS3 and the Xbox 360 trundles towards its last hurrah, Joel is the last of us, The Last of Them. He is the ragged, reluctant killer. Bone tired of shooting at enemies from cover; world weary — literally he no longer wants to engage with the universe he inhabits. Joel is the last man standing in a shootout we've endured and participated in for an entire generation.
Joel is the last of us.
Joel is a permanent fixture in the ruin of the world we once built; a testament to the technology that transformed our lives. Now it is our tomb. Skyscrapers that once soared effortlessly into a vertical vanishing point lean precariously on one another for support, crumbling beneath the weight of their own history. We are part of that history: a generation of gamers repeating the precise same mechanic, across multiple different games a terrifying amount of times.
Reeves, Brianna (2019-03-14). "Our Favorite Characters: Joel and Morality in The Last of Us". PlayStation LifeStyle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
In PlayStation Lifestyles favorite character column, well celebrate, you guessed it, our favorite game characters. Personally, The Last of Us' Joel came to mind immediately, though not because I favor him over others. Rather, I hoped to examine what about him resonated most with me. Years after its release, talk of TLoU still dissolves into dissecting Joel as hero, villain, or anti-hero. Many deem him one of the latter two archetypes; no hero would damn humanity to selfishly protect a loved one. But Joel isn't heroic, nor does he try to be. We cant hold him to the standards of Superman. Joels an average joe who, before the apocalypse, appeared struck by financial woes. As such, faced with a similar conundrum under similar circumstances, how many of us would save Ellie? I believe I would.
...
In a just society, no one should have to choose who lives or dies. The nuances are too numerous; plus, fundamentally speaking, its morally inept. However, The Last of Us exists in a time absent morality's governing human behavior. Should Joel be judged amoral, then, villainous? Is he as depraved as the men and women he fights to ensure Ellies survival? It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective, the answers no. Joel preserving Ellies future over that of humanity's does not equal amorality. If anything, it accentuates his humanity. He lost his only child, Sarah, to an insensitive act, carelessness, behavior he witnesses tenfold and with much more intensity for 20 years after civilizations fall. As far as hes concerned, TLoUs version of mankind is undeserving of yet another sacrifice.
Cheeda, Saim (2019-10-10). "The Last Of Us: 10 Best Joel Quotes". Game Rant. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
The article notes:
Joel's grief over his daughter's death led him down a path of darkness so bleak, that he came out as a completely apathetic person two decades later. This was needed, though, since it served as juxtaposition to the Joel we saw later in the game.
...
There's a lot of debate that has gone on for over six years whether this scene cemented Joel as a villain or not, but theres no question it was incredibly impactful. Although Marlene had given him several chances to leave when she could've killed him, Joel didn't extend the same courtesy to her when the tables turned.
...
Before the winter chapter of The Last of Us, we hadn't seen the tender and loving side of Joel. Hed been caring to an extent, but he hadn't been outright fatherly toward Ellie up until he said these words.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel received substantial analysis in a six-paragraph chapter titled "Joel" in the 2017 book 100 Greatest Video Game Characters published by Rowman & Littlefield. A sample quote: "Joel's character assumes significance for his anti-heroism that is constellated around resisting the commodification of humans. His character destabilizes our notions of love, community, and morality to explore the limits of our humanity in a dystopian world. Cast as an archetypal, flawed anti-hero obsessed with self-preservation, Joel resonates for many of us who likewise put a high premium on self-interest. He wins the gamer's sympathies because he lives while his loved ones have died."
Joel received substantial analysis in a chapter titled "(Re)reading Fatherhood: Applying Reader Response Theory to Joel's Father Role in The Last of Us" in the 2019 Palgrave Macmillan book "Masculinities in Play". A sample quote: "In many ways, Joel is a complicated character and his life experiences and circumstances shape who he is. During the opening series with his daughter Sarah, Joel most closely embodies the nurturing version of the New Man and correspondingly, the New Father. ... Reflecting the key Nurturing New Man and New Father characteristics, Joel is sensitive, caring, and emotionally engaged with Sarah, and as a single parent, he is responsible for the home and childcare. Twenty years later, Joel is a changed man. Unfortunately, the change is regressive as his actions are more symbolic of the Old Man and Old Father. He is gruff. He uses violence to solve his issues, and upon meeting Ellie and hearing the request to escort her, he is very reluctant."
Gerald Voorhees, an assistant professor in the Department of Drama and Speech Communication at the University of Waterloo wrote a 2014 article with a section titled "Heroic Masculinity: Selfish Joel" in the First Person Scholar journal. A sample quote: "To accept this or, more radically, to adopt the perspective that Joel is a villain, (discussed here, here and here, among other places,) is melancholic. For players holding onto the notion of heroic masculinity, what Joel does is unacceptable and his offense against heroic masculinity must be witnessed and tried in the court of public opinion. True, gender is not explicitly evoked in Joels condemnation, but its more than naïve to think that Joel's excoriation just coincidentally occurs along the lines of his violation of gender norms."
Soraya Murray wrote a 2019 article in the Digital Games Research Association's Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association journal which provides substantial analysis of Joel. A sample quote: "The impossible, imperiled position of whiteness is embodied in Joel, the bedraggled protagonist and primary playable character of The Last of Us. He is self-consciously normal and "everyman" in his manifestation, possessing neither superhuman powers nor the skills of a supersoldier. He is vulnerable, emotionally shut down and compromised, definitively an anti-hero. At some point in the narrative, his young partner, Ellie, takes on the protector/provider role after he is seriously injured."
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information related to the work, include".
This "information external to the work" recommendation is clearly met by these sources, which provide substantial analysis of Joel.
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to above editors showing sources. An article does not fall under WP:FANCRUFT if it is notable on it's own merits, which this is. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sources found prove this is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, as for the comments of the quality of the article I believe WP:DINC is particularly revelent here. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the article, the subject matter is clearly notable judging by the citations. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it might skirt by on notability, but this content is better served in an overview article rather than standalone. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too many reliable sources to not be notable. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came across another reliable source focussing on Joel [10]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Cunard presented plenty of reliable sources which makes the article notable. with his horrible death on sequel, there will be more sources to be produced describing him and his tradegy of the game. 200.104.247.250 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (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. The required work to get to AfD does not seem to have been undertaken just yet for these articles as a collective. Some of the articles may be individually renominated, or may end up being merged or redirected individually, but consensus is in favour of keeping the entire group, in lieu of any more specific nominations. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embodiment of Scarlet Devil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:DEL#7 and WP:DEL#8. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:DEL#7,WP:DEL#8:

Nightvour (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent, if not weak delete. While I understand that it's likely these pages may be deleted due to insignificant coverage in sources, the franchise itself is absolutely notable (Medium article, PC Gamer article 1, PC Gamer article 2). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it would be good to hear from some Japanese-speakers in this discussion. There may be japanese-language sources us non-speakers are missing. Also the Japanese-language articles seem better sourced, but I can't tell if the sources are of any value. ApLundell (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this content isn't notable (I haven't looked), there exists at least one redirect target. WP:ATD and all that. On the note of notability, mass nominations tend to drive people away from assessing each on its merits as should happen. Did the nominator perform a WP:BEFORE check? --Izno (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They clearly meet WP:DEL#8 and the nominator has provided no indication that they have even attempted to find out if they meet WP:DEL#7. Some of them could possibly be merged and redirected into the main Touhou Project article, but that is not something that needs to concern AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. There are significant differences between these articles in quality, length, and number of references, so we really cannot make a decision to just delete all of them. The nominator should try to get consensus (on the relevant talk pages) to merge into Touhou Project on an article-by-article basis. Such a merge is probably the right course of action for the ones that don't cite any sources. PJvanMill (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2020 (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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Online 3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all the sources appear to be from the company. From a Google search I didn't see any articles that looked like were not simply reposts of press releases from the company. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Polygon, Korean Herald, Sportskeeda and IGN all at least talk about the game in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed links: Korean Herald, Sportskeeda — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability is questionable, seems a promotional article as per the sources added. Drat8sub (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with overall notability in web search, clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE, Lee pointed to some decent links above, even businesswire.com wrote an article and that's saying something. Article is in a poor state, but that is not a reason to eliminate it. There are lots of other links for the game in other language sources, seems like their is some reception from Asian websites. I don't think nominator did an extensive enough search! Govvy (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I would appreciate it if you would remove the accusation clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE. That is not true. As I said in the beginning, I did a Google search (this plus some others) and I didn't find anything substantial (Please look at the first 20 entries). I saw the Business Wire post, which read like a press release, and I quickly dismissed it as WP:PROMO: Business Wire's about page says "Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure."

As to the sources provided by Lee Vilenski, I tried looking at them, and two of the four links don't work. I am not sure if the other two count as WP:RS or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you got so offended! I really don't think you did a good enough web search. I only loaded three of the four links, but for Sport Skeeda, my search AI adjust to this link. koreaherald.com, didn't load. But I certainly felt I saw enough sources in a google search that makes me feel the article should pass GNG. Seems like it was more pushed for the Asian market, saw reviews of the game I could not read or translate. Example articles for the push to the Asian market like techinasia.com, bangkokpost.com. This article is one month old from Indonesia [11] about termination in Asia to make way for FIFA Online 4. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you revised your meaning in the response to something softer. I find it irritating to be accused of not doing a WP:BEFORE, when I have done it, having spent a significant amount of time on it, and the sources I looked at did not appear to me to meet WP:GNG. Editors have different experiences and knowledge of sources, especially in fields they do not know much about. I have virtually no knowledge of current video games or the best sources for it, so it's a lot harder and time consuming for me to access sources like www.polygon.com and IGN, that may just be sites used to promote games or user-generated content, and even mainstream publications like bangkokpost.com, that may also be user-generated rather than truly WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. When I see an article like this that is almost all WP:PROMO from the company, and I can't find enough sources I feel for sure to be good enough establish WP:GNG, I think I should be able to submit it to WP:AfD to have other editors look at it, without being accused of failing to do WP:BEFORE, when I did, and nothing in clearly reliable sources in WP:RS/P like NYT, WaPo, etc. comes up. It just seems an unnecessary attack another editor's good faith attempt to get rid of articles that appear to be WP:PROMO.

I brought it here so that others who know the sources better can decide, and I appreciate you offering sources. I would just rather you provide the sources rather than attack the editors who didn't find them and who are making a good faith attempt to rid the encyclopedia of WP:PROMO.

As to the sources you are providing: I would be willing to change my !vote to a keep, if you can make it clear why you think the sources are WP:RS -and- more specifically why you believe any particular published article is not user-generated, a press release, promo, or pay-to-play "news" advertising. I do appreciate your help and experience in that regard. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do see that IGN is in WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources seem to be promotional, per nominator's rationale, and there is no evidence of notability, per Giant Snowman. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable enough to have an article, and also FIFA Online 2 and FIFA Online 4 have articles, so why would we delete this one? If you want it deleted, you would have to delete FIFA Online 2 and 4. Another possible option would be to Merge the article into one article called FIFA Online (series). Matthewishere0 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA Online 2 and FIFA Online 4 aren't exactly shining examples of well-writen articles that justify their intermediate release to also have one. Both rely overly on primary and tertiary sources, with secondary coverage almost nowhere to be found. I redirected FIFA Online 4 to the series article (whicht already exists, bye the way) for now. I'm a bit hesistant in regards to FIFA Online 2 and left a note regarding this on its talk page. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Korea, FIFA Online 3 is currently the 2nd most popular PC game. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being notable. A subject's popularity does not mean it automatically deserves a Wikipedia article. I could find no sources that indicate that this game is notable enough to warrant its own article. There's also some weird, baseless accusations being tossed around here which is inappropriate for a deletion discussion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FIFA Online video games (which is about to be renamed "FIFA Online") or alternatively delete. Coverage is extremely thin; there is some coverage of announcements in reliable sources, but nothing that goes in-depth with the topic. It being relatively popular in one specific country does not make it notable in its own right, WP:GNG still applies. I would even do the same for other games in the series that are similarly not notable. IceWelder [✉] 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewelder. I think it's ok to let it incubate as a series article for now. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- as proposer, I am also okay with a merge. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewelder as well. Searching for more sources, I only came up with a Destructoid mention (linked here [12]) but nothing else on top of the weak sources already listed here. Nomader (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge probably is the best decision here, but there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for any particular decision just yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - most of this article is better covered in the main FIFA article. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Benefit of the doubt as there is seemingly a decent spread of sources and the deletion arguments are unconvincing. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (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 and redirect to Xbox 360. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia (emulator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, even with the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches. Xenia gets mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but these are simply that: trivial mentions. It also appears on a few listicles, but most of them seem to be published by sketchy SEO affiliate sites. Then there are the press releases, download sites, forum posts, YouTube videos, and other low-quality sources you tend to find on software. What we need is significant and independent and reliable coverage and I'm not seeing it. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The emulator has been the primary subject of numerous articles written in reliable news outlets that extends beyond trivial mention. The following reliable sources have covered the subject in significant, non-trivial ways.

CinemaBlend

Polygon
VGR

PC Gamer, PC Gamer
DOSGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming

--Odie5533 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSOG and CinemaBlend are unreliable, WccfTech situational, and the reliability of VGR, Happy Gamer and SegmentNext has not yet been assessed. Even then, reviewing these sources, it is clear that all of them (reliable and unreliable ones) are either rehashes of news bits ("Xena dev team has done X") or reports of one or another game now being playable on the emulator, usually from configurations by third parties. None constitute significant coverage of the emulator itself. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You declare CinemaBlend is unreliable, but Ars Technica, IGN, Newsweek, USA Today, Deseret News, Herald-Standard, The Canberra Times, Patriot-News, ScreenRant, DigitalSpy, and countless other news outlets rely on their reporting. I believe they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaBlend has been discussed at RSN and VGRS and found to be generally unreliable. But even if it wasn't, the source is unquestionably trivial: there's one sentence about Xenia that gives no real information, a pull-quote from the developer, and 5-6 paragraphs about game system architecture. Xenia is mentioned two more times in the article, but never with any detail. That's true of all coverage of Xenia, save for extremely niche, unreliable sources. And that's the point of GNG: if reliable sources can't be bothered to cover a subject in significant detail, why should we? Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point of GNG. If we actually cared about removing articles that had essentially no reliable sources, then we would remove the hundreds of thousands of no-name athletes from this website. The GNG serves to pointlessly restrict this website. This article has more sources than 90% of Wikipedia articles. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of GNG is to stop Wikipedia from being flooded with thousands of articles that will never go beyond one or two sourcable sentences. As an encyclopedia, such restrictions (if you can even call them "restrictions") are perfectly reasonable. If you think that GNG should be changed, please bring the issue to GNG, not here. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, most of these sources only mentions Xenia in passing. None of them is actual about the emulator itself and doesn't provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill news articles and articles detailing how one specific person got one specific game to run on the emulator does not pass GNG. Even the few sources that focus on the topic fail to go into any detail about it. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IceWelder pulled up good sources and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. It's notable enough. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably skipped a line there. I did not pull up any sources but actually explained why those given by Odie5533 are far from sufficient to demonstrate notability. If have no reliable sources with which we could build a proper article for it, we shouldn't have an article at all. Please try to use the reliable sources from Odie's comment to rewrite the article. You will find that, beyond like one feature, some run-of-the-mill news and a bunch of games that have been emulated through it, there is nothing significant about the engine itself that you could possibly write from these sources alone. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and IceWelder. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The coverage of it in Polygon and elsewhere is enough to prove this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually checked the sources? Are they not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL or WP:PASSING cases? Do they cover WP:SIGCOV? No, they don't. In terms of reliable sourcing (not considering thr aforementioned issues), the article is currently complete. I went over exactly these issues above multiple times. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Two sources that don't even offer significant coverage doesn't constitute notability. The subject is best left as just a mention on the article for the Xbox 360, it doesn't need its own page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Other coverage such as https://www.polygon.com/2014/3/29/5560764/video-shows-xbox-360-emulation-pc https://www.pcgamer.com/see-gears-of-war-2-fable-2-lost-odyssey-silent-hill-downpour-and-more-emulated-on-pc/ Click on those two links. Dream Focus 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link, and looking at the sources, it makes me wonder whether you actually clicked on them. The first source is already in the article, and is a 1:1 rehash of information provided by the dev. The second source only says that Xenia "has a new update" and then goes on to talk about someone completely unrelated has used the game to get an unrelated game to run somehow. Both sources were discussed above already and both sources do not constitute significant coverage, but you probably knew that already. IceWelder [✉] 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two sources don't automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. Could not find much from reliable publications, either. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no significant coverage. You can't build an article on two sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notable sources, it's a topic that could be mentioned on the xbox 360 page itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk
Redirect to Xbox 360, where the subject can be covered. JOE BRO 64 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Redirect to Xbox 360. The article appears to suffer the same problems as the one in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU exactly a year ago. Not counting the Red Dead Redemption fan remaster project, even after looking it up on Google via a link above, I can't find any sources that are more than just "Game(s) emulated on PC/playable on Xenia". theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xbox 360 as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — but most importantly revert to the state before the article was made deletion-worthy by removal of all content coming from the most informative sources (first-party ones, simply because gaming websites considered reliable do not care about information that was deleted from the article because it's not their purpose and goal) in this context. Triang3l (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: This user has disclosed a conflict of interest. IceWelder [✉] 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is the only tool able to efficiently imitates Xbox 360 on PC 1 2, it is the best Xbox 360 emulator for PC. 3456 It is capable of playing approximately 170 Xbox 360 games. 7 There is taken huge rigor, compared to other articles, look to other articles in Free emulation software. For example 1964 (emulator) and others? Xenia is also on Emulator-zone.com and SourceForge.net. In my opinion, the "Template:More citations needed" would be enough. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You know the template will require you to provide reliable sources for significant coverage to establish notability, right? Something that you have not done, both on the article and here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant indepth coverage is missing. We have fans and COI editors in this afd, as well as "it's useful" type keep votes. Primary and unreliable sources do not establish notability. I'm fine with a redirect as well, or TNT it first then redirect. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Video games-related deletions==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_games_represented_in_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games represented in the Super Smash Bros. series}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voltar (G.I. Joe)}}