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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:41, 18 August 2008

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/Archivesbox

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.

August 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Witch Parfait

The game itself hardly seems to be notable as per WP:NOTE. Google hits are kind of sparse and mostly trying to sell me some sort of PVC figurine. This article, along with others related to the game series, also seem largely extraneous. After all, it seems completely senseless for a "stub-class" article to have its own entire category, all related to topics within that of the main article.

Also, they all seem to be edited virtually entirely by a single person, and there is no establishment of notability except for one unsourced statement regarding its success in China/Korea.

These articles have been around for a little while now, and nobody with interest in the subject seems to want to fix them up, so the most sensible thing to do at this point would be to delete them, in my opinion. A merge would make more sense to me, but even the main article seems kind of flimsy with regards to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. G-Flex (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 02:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the other pages which I am nominating, along with this one, as per my original statement:

G-Flex (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There may well be sources that aren't in English, but I can't find anything notable about any of this. I'd be happy to change if anyone can find sources, but I'm pulling up a blank. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No sources to indicate notability for any of them. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (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 salt. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 3

Crystal ball article about a video game. Entire article is based on a supposed "leaked" document posted on a fansite in October of last year about a game that might be developed sometime maybe. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the previous unanimous AfD's, I am also asking for a generous helping of salt. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also the Gameplay section is just copied from the BF2 article by replacing 2 with 3. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It should be speedy deleted not afded. It was deleted two times. There is no source available. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) and salt — Blatant recreation of deleted material intended to shirk the deletion process. Hence, the necessity to salt the earth and prevent further recreation/disruption of Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on speedy The problem sometimes with a speedy is that since I had not seen the previous ,now deleted, versions, I can't speak to whether this version was simply a recreation of that material or a new version with the same flaws. Also I hoped a 3rd AfD would be enough to get creation protection, not always the case with speedies. Not that I'm actually disagreeing, it is obviously not an appropriate article and I figured the outcome of this AfD was a foregone conclusion before I even opened it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - no sources; the document only might be related; the Gameplay section is copied. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. Fin ©™ 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to make a smoothie out of the WP:SNOW and the WP:SALT. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bring the adult beverages (of course, only for adults and not for me, as I am on the wagon right now). MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:41, 22 August 2008 (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 & redirect to Porting#Porting in gaming. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade perfect

Dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Possible WP:NEOLOGISM. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Tavix (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Porting#Porting in gaming. In the context of the larger article, I believe it will have much more value on Wikipedia. The term is a measure of quality though, that I have heard of. Perhaps someone can find a reference? (At work so can't look up game topics right now). Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Turlo Lomon. It's not an uncommon term, but I think it'd be better in the article on Porting. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Porting. It has value, but it can't get beyond a dictionary definition where it is now. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:41, 18 August 2008 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simtractor

While there were a fair number of Google hits for this game, I was unable to find anything like a reliable source, all the links in the article are either to the games official site or fan sites. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable, third party sources. The article been orphaned from the start. I see no way to defend this article. --Abusing (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerous blog references. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources. Axl (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (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 List_of_Galaxy_Angel_characters; action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-Nano Pudding

It seems to me that such a minor fictional character as Nano-Nano Pudding should not have it's own entry. The article itself is just not notable enough! I can understand a brief summary in the game Galaxy Angel, but having an article on the character is just going too far. Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is wholly unreferenced by means of reliable sources, consisting of plot synopses and original research. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the suggestion of the pre-existing template and merge to List_of_Galaxy_Angel_characters, which is the consensus way to handle fictive elements of notable fictions that are not independently notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Network (AdventureQuest)

"The Network" isn't even mentioned on the AdventureQuest main page. This also seems superfluous to List of characters in AdventureQuest. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 11:13, 23 August 2008 (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.

August 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 Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn after discovery of new sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Ones (video game)

Contested WP:PROD. Restating the rationale from the prod, "Non-notable video game. Lone reference only shows the existence of the game and does not indicate any notability." MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see magazine reviews in world of spectrum's archive here. According to the full page advert it was released on all the major computers at the time, there'll be more reviews either in magazines or archives. Someone another 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot! I keep forgetting about that blasted Amiga magazine rack! MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So have I and so have others and so it will continue, WoS and the AMR often don't come up easily, and 'World of Spectrum' sounds like one of the numerous useless fansites you trawl through looking for sources, unless you know what it is. If you're satisfied with those reviews, and IMO they're as good as you'll get for an 8-bit game, would you consider withdrawing the AFD? Someone another 21:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. My apologies. MuZemike (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2008 (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 (non-admin closure), Per consensus below and nom suggestion. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sims 2 store

Not notable enough for it's own article; this should be merged into Sims 2. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD is not necessary for a merge. But I think a merge would be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and do a merger proposal per WP:MERGE instead. MuZemike (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose merge per both above suggestions, AFD isn't for merge candidates. Someone another 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since deletion is not even suggested by the nominator.DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator does not suggest deletion. Maxa megalon 2000 00:33, 17 August 2008 (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.

August 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. Wizardman 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest moon ds recipes

This is simply a game guide with no encyclopedic value. Also note: this had speedy delete, as well as a prod at one point: but the creator of the article removed both for no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably SNOW. Article is very obviously a game guide/Howto which explicitly violates WP:NOT. Removing the howto information creates a listing of game elements with no established notability. -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Wikipedia the place for a WP:CONCISEPLOT, and not an almanac of every item/weapon/enemy/move/etc. of a game. Also fails the General Notability Guideline since it lacks reliable third-party sources with enough coverage to write even a short WP:VERIFIABLE article on the subject. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, the article even refers to itself as a guide, GameFAQs we ain't. Someone another 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is Not GameFAQs. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here and transwiki — Wikipedia is not a game guide. This information is suitable in a strategy guide wiki like StrategyWiki, WikiCheats, etc. It's also obviously WP:SNOWing here. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has now been transwikied to Strategy Wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (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. Wizardman 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLB 09: The Show

WP:CRYSTAL violation, with zero sourcing and no information beyond title and system. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, although it will obviously come out, but does not warrant an article now. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Game has not been announced yet.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A1) — no context. This has even less information than the example given there. MuZemike (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. Though stubs for upcoming releases are generated pretty much the moment a game is announced nowadays, we aren't in competition with the gaming press and I can't find any concrete announcement for this title, just message board posts. Someone another 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until an announcement about MLB 09 is made this page has no reason for existence.--TSSaloic (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2008 (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. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riot of the Blood

An article on an aspect of the King of Fighters series of games which has no real world relevance. More importantly, the article is a coatrack on which is hung a completely unrelated paragraph about "SNK Boss Syndrome", an article which has been repeatedly deleted before. As such, while I put it up for AfD myself because it is ostensibly an article about "Riot of the Blood", I think it should be speedy deleted as its true purpose is a hiding place for this piece of unsourced original research that has been repeatedly deleted. JuJube (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) — I agree with the nom regarding WP:COAT. Furthermore, I would not be opposed to WP:SALTing SNK Boss Syndrome. MuZemike (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (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.

August 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to Ubisoft. Sandstein 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Singapore

Delete non-notable subsidiary with no content that needs to be merged back to the parent company Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect The company has notable coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here, here, here, here, here and finally here. What the company does not have is they don't have products. If there are products the article can exist till then redirect to UbiSoft.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article about Ubisoft. Maybe if more information surfaces, a split would make sense. But in the meantime, there's not much coverage for this office, although it is barely notable. Better to have one great article than a useless stub. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft. Nifboy (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources are listed by SkyWalker for the article to meet the WP:GNG. If it meets the general guideline it doesn't need to meet WP:CORP. Even if they haven't produced products yet, the sources listed above are more than enough for a start class article on the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2008 (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.

August 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontlines: Fuel of War 2

Article is based around speculation and offers nothing to verify a sequel. Fails WP:Crystal. --FireV (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and has no sources or ghits. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballery and original research. FireV, you realize you've actually PRODded the article rather than left an AFD template? Someone another 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure unsourced speculation and OR. If there was any valuable content I'd recommend a merge & redirect to Frontlines: Fuel of War#Sequel but there's not. --Stormie (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, is a possibly upcoming sequel. This article should be speedy deleted. There is source or information.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2008 (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. Consensus is that this subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion. As it is a potential search term, it will be recreated as a redirect to The Sims. After reviewing the article and the target there's really nothing here worth merging, but I am willing to provide a userfied version of this article if someone requests it for the purpose of expanding related articles. Shereth 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Goth

Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Certainly notable within The Sims community which is substantial. I'm reminded of the Pokemon test here (which Mortimer Goth would pass with flying colours). Alternatively, if the article absolutely must be deleted, replace with disambiguation page linking both The Sims and The Sims 2.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize the pokemon test has been made completely void by the listification of all but, like, four pokémon? Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Current article appears to be copy of an old version of the one currently on the Sims Wikia - however would suggest if sources could be found it should be Merged to Sims 2, with a disambiguation page per S Marshall. Does not have notablity independant of the seris, but an article on the family may be a reasonable breakout from the various Sims articles. NullofWest (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response good point--disambiguation page should also direct to The Sims wikia!--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't. We haven't got any special relationship with that Wiki, we should not be linking to it as it is unreliable. NullofWest, could you please link to where this has been copied from? This article is probably a copyright violation. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. The article is located here: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Mortimer_Goth - but there wasn't actually an old diff that looks like ours NullofWest (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no copyvio issue here ; if it came from the wikia page, which is GFDL, then its fine here (and vice versa). However, on the point of linking to Wikias, that is what we should be doing for content that otherwise doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as long as the Sims editors on WP have decided that that is a reliable Wiki for such additional information. It is the necessary compliment to where material should go when it is not notable or part of WP's normal coverage. --MASEM 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking something from a GFDL source and not citing it is a copyvio issue, which is what I thought had happened here. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, if the article was copied from the wikia to here, the history needed to be copied as well per GFDL. However, I cannot figure out if this is the case or not. --MASEM 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the GFDL doesn't speak of requiring history which is very much a wiki concept. The main point is retaining the details of the contributors, which we generally do by history, but copying the history from an unrelated wiki where the users may neither have an account here or be completely differenet users with the same names here would make no sense. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link back to the Sims Wikia (preferably in a few places- edit summaries, external links/references, talk page) would be sufficient in terms of GFDL. If the page was then deleted on the Sims Wikia, we may have a problem- I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HereFord 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unoriginal research? It's based on the authors' experiences playing the game- not a single source cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a cool for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT not deletion as reliable sources exist. Plus, the article was created a mere two days ago. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sims, as the subject is covered in all the appropriate detail there. Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. Three mentions in "the official strategy guide" for the game is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are nevertheless references in reliable sources and demonstrate notability in that the subject is not a one-off character. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An official game guide is not a reliable source- "official" = first party. Furthermore, we are not a game guide, and so if the only material available is suitable only for a game guide, it is not suitable for us. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing a game guide no more makes us a game guide than citing an "official" government report makes us the government. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Including material that is worthy of only being in a game guide makes us a game guide, but the source is still primary- not reliable. Thus, this article fails our policy on verifiability. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I find that a good deal of material in game guides is actually wikipedic and the idea that primary sources are unreliable is inconsistent with encyclopedic tradition in that primary sources are reliable when used in certain manners and in the manner used here we have no reason to doubt them. For the secondary source information, I recommend preview or reviews that mention the character. Collectively, these pass are policy on verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Primary sources are sometimes useful for referencing uncontroversial material, but they are usless for determining the notability of a subject- the worthiness of it to be included in the encyclopedia. If reviews that have extensively discussed the character are provided, then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion- until that time, keeping the article on the off chance that some exist (especially when this article is weak and based on original research anyway) is foolish. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything "controversial" about this material. Not every video game character gets mention in game guides, especially not in multiple ones, as not every game gets a guide, which means that inclusion in guides is measure of notability in itself. As for reviews, Salon's review does cover the characters. To me the multiple appearances in the games and coverage in multiple publications provides the notability of this character relative to characters who do not appear in multiple games or who are not covered in multiple guides and the out of universe comments in reviews of the game provides information that can be used in a reception section. I am not sure if PC Gamer has an online archive, but I would be curious if any back issues have interviews with makers of the game, that could provide some of the creation information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said there was anything controversial in the article- come on, you're an intelligent person, you don't need to resort to twisting my words. Verifying information and judging the encyclopedic value of subjects can require different kinds of sources- the official game guides may provide some information which would be relevant in an article, but one could not base an article off them, and one could not justify an article existing because of the primary sources discussing the subject. The review you mention has only a passing mention, and, again, the mention is irrelevant- it has no encyclopedic worth; there's nothing we could extract from the article for use in our own. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, what about this article which starts of with a few paragraphs on the character, i.e. he seems to be a fairly central character. Why not instead of outright deletion at least merge and/or redirect without deleting the edit history to List of Canon Sims Characters#The Goth.27s or The Sims 2#Characters. Obviously a number of editors believe it a legitimate search term, so we could always redirect to one of those sections and then as/if additional sources come up go from there. I think that would be a fair and reasonable compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. --Hank Pym (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? As indicated above it passes both. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, as indicated above, it passes neither. You hold a minority view- confronting everyone who disagrees with you directly can be intimidating. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I indicated above, it passes both, but I just noticed something seriously disconcerting about the validity of this discussion above. So, hold on a second, please. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As you indicated above, this meets your very loose notability guidelines, not Wikipedia's own. Mentions in first party sources and a passing mention (by name only, no details) in a review does not assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My notability guidelines are consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. They assert notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hank Pym has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Fredrick day, please disregard. --Stormie (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Please note that neither myself nor Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles are sock puppets of banned users, so our comments in reply should not be ignored. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Expand To Clarify my current postion: I belive that Mortimer does not on his own meet WP:N, but that the family as a whole can, therefore I propose the article should be merged with those on Bella Goth and Cassandra Goth into something like Goth family (Sims Seris) - with information on Alexander Goth as well, if he's deemed noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NullofWest (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per J. Milburn and Stormie, and yes LGRdC I'm aware of WP:PERNOM. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, see rationale below. Delete, completely unsourced with no evidence of notability, and I haven't seen much evidence that there is significant reliable source coverage of this character out there at all. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two published game guides and references in reviews equals both notability and coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - After the addition of some sources, I see a couple of reviews that open up with a brief mention of this default character as a way of providing an in-universe flavour of the game... I think Lovelac put it very well in that this guy is the game equivalent of the guy that comes with the picture frame. Overall I think there's probably about a paragraph's worth of verifiable information which would be best merged to List of Canon Sims Characters, along with his fictional family members that also currently have articles even worse than this one. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Sims - a fictional character in The Sims, zero claim to notability, zero independent sources --T-rex 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The appearances in multiple pubolished sources and multiple games equals notability and reviews of the games equals independent sources. Redirectable material is redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am only stating that there is no content worth merging. I have no problem if the article is redirected while leaving the history intact. --T-rex 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. The character is never discussed in anything other than gameguide terms in reliable third-party applications. The mind, she boggles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, the character is indeed discussed in reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were not discussed, they were mentioned. There's a big difference. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Multiple times though is significant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Mortimer Goth is not a well-known video game character like Mario, Sonic, or Link. He is the digital equivalent of the guy who comes with a picture frame. Lovelac7 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectable material need not also be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but it needn't be kept, either. Could go either way, Lovelac7 is simply indicating that (s)he believes it should be deleted when redirected, perhaps to prevent people reverting to the current version. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When in doubt we keep. There's no compelling reason to delete it as there's no reason presented as to what Wikipedia actually gains by deleting it. One can redirect keeping the edit history intact and protect the redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. The article reads like his character bio in a strategy guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game" is. Please be fair in how you represent the arguments of other Wikipedians. It's one thing to disagree. It's something else to misrepresent what they're saying. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't when it is not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then say "that's not true", and WP:PROVEIT. Please stop misrepresenting !votes as WP:JNN if they contain information about how or why the article isn't notable. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already have. I can hold a banana up to someone and they can say, "I don't see a banana", but it doesn't change that I am in fact holding one up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad you held up the "banana". But I'm asking you politely to stop using the WP:JNN essay when someone has attempted to explain how an article has failed our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The user in question has said it is his mission to delete articles and that he would never argue to keep and in fact never has. Therefore, the claims of not being notable or how it is not notable are never really made open-mindedly or objectively from that particular account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you ever argued to keep an article? Seriously though, a user who edits solely to rid Wikipedia of crappy articles on non-topics is doing a good job in my book. We're all volunteers- we can edit in the areas we wish to, and this user wishes to help the encyclopedia by arguing to remove articles that should not be here. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I have argued to keep articles. Do you mean have I ever argued to delete? If so, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams equation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagot Beast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint McGeady, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian's identity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy-cook rice (joke), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy Your Plague, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatzfeldt Syndrome, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make a Chocolate Souffle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Smith (musician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Langton's Speech, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Nixoer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurtis Krow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Foresta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenge Of Chucky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape secret letters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabahad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Levy (MMA Fighter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Creed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serg Klimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes One To Know One, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Patrick Star Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy "Biggs" Soper, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, etc. (yes, I have argued to delete in even more than the preceding examples). And I am willing to chance my stance from delete to keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis) when new sources are available. A user who is never willing to do that is not fairly or accurately reflecting the reality of the article and its potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia and merge to List of Canon Sims Characters along with Bella, Cassandra, and Alexander Goth. This fits much better in that list. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the general notability guidelines because there is no significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources independent of the game. The only source that was found only mentions the character by name, and does not offer any factual or critical information to write a WP:VERIFIABLE article. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the general notability guideline because there is substantial enough coverage of this subject in reliable sources and is verifiable by any reasonable definition of the word. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only source you found does not verify the contents of the article. I'm quoting: "I set to work fixing Chris up with Mortimer Goth from across the street; five or six visits and about 20 compliments later, they finally kissed." That's it. You can't write a verifiable article with that. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - With that and with the other sources mentioned above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't cite reliable, independent sources which would grant it notability under the WP:GNG. We haven't enacted WP:FICT as a daughter guideline, so we can't claim any inherited notability from the larger work of fiction. The sources listed in this AfD but not added to the article either seem to be tangential (reviews or one-liners) or not independent. I don't see a problem with a redirect and nothing should stop us from transwikiing the article, but both of those are editorial considerations. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per per LGRdC and S Marshall's commentary (no sense repeating it -- they said it best and first) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I noticed that the article was only created on August 11 and that no merge or redirect discussions were attempted on the talk page first. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, we should have first been discussing the article's potential with its creator and exhausted these other options on at least the talk page for at least a couple of days or so before coming here. Barring there were hoax or libel concerns, we should give editors that courtesy and then if they say they don't have any other sources, okay, but the AfD actually now seems a bit premature. After all, a mere five days is hardly sufficient time from article creation to the end of the AfD to have sufficient exhausted all possibilities as to what to do with our coverage of this notable and verifiable fictional character. After all, consider how the article for even the most notable video game character "developed" after in its first five days: [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this character is evidently not one millionth as notable as Mario despite having appeared in a series of games which have sold more copies than most of the Mario series combined, I find this to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. It is my considered opinion that this article could be left for five years without developing into a worthwhile article. I sense that what I about to hear is a proposal that it be left for five years just in case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If I'm honest, I didn't expect the AfD to be controversial in any way. However, this is a modern subject, a youth subject and a computing subject- all three of which are factors that would imply the vast majority of information could be found online. For this reason, I would argue that fives days was more than enough to find and assess sources- all that have been found are primary sources, unreliable sources and the briefest of mentions- nothing that we can work with to produce a decent article. If that is all that can be found on the medium suited to the subject, what do you honestly think we will be able to find offline, even if given a long time? J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris, why not? Notability is not going decline, it could only increase. Less sources are not going to be found, only more could be. I see no reason not to give more than a few days. Why not contact the article creator and request he look through some game magazines without online archives to see if they cover this character? To J, I subscribe to EGM and GameInformer and they have sections on fictional characters without of universe coverage all of the time. Sometimes, if I am reading by a computer I even cite the magzines. Take for example the July issue of GameInformer. Its cover story focuses on a game called Infamous. On page 47, the bulk of the page is taken up by giant labeled images of three central characters with section headings on them titled "The Voice of Survival," "The Ex," and "The Nut." In the whole paragraphs devoted to each of these characters is not merely an in universe description but out of universe comments such as a comparison of "The Ex" as "Lois Lane with synringes." I would be somewhat surprised if multi-page magazine previews and reviews on The Sims do not have similar coverage. Yes, Google will find some results these magazines post on their affiliated websites, but the magazines do not regularly post all of their coverage online. Now, I do not subscribe myself to the PC magazines, so I am not in the next few minutes able to say go through those, but I would expect that a character with appearances in at least two games and coverage in at least two strategy guides (I own a good deal of games, most of them actually do NOT have published guides), has a realistic potential for us finding this additional out of universe material. Given that we do not have deadlines, why outright delete it? Why not at worst merge and redirect it? Why not userfy it for the article creator (not me, I have as much as I can handle of userfied content for now!) and request he/she add some additional sources before placing it back in mainspace? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I was just about to cite the Game Informer stuff to the article I mentioned above and lo and behold someone already did so in this section! By the way, please note that the article under discussion here has been improving since nomination and if I was able to do that much in so short of time, I belive it establishes enough potential for it to realistically be saved in some capacity, even if merged and redirected. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the principle characters in a very notable game. The article is not sufficiently detailed to serve a a game guide, so that's irrelevant. Anyone who has actually worked on these topics as I have will know that the material is poorly indexed, widely dispersed, and elusive, and requires considerable time for sourcing.We do not delete as unsourced, only as unsourcable, and it would take quite a lot to convince me that none of the scattered discussions of this game cover the character significantly. In any case, there is no reason not to merge. DGG (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to various targets outlined above. At some point we need to be practical; the topic of an article should be notable, but not every notable topic deserves an article - this character is a prime example where a better discussion of the character can be made when talking about all the characters in the game as a whole. We can still provide the search term and the redirection and further coverage on a sims character page and the link to the sims wikia, but a full article is not needed. --MASEM 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to List of Sims Characters. Notable character in notable game. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to a list of the Sims characters. Does not appear to be notable outside that game's universe. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, you've already 'voted' above to delete. Could you strike whichever comment no longer applies? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2008 (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. Nandesuka (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

There are no references to denote notability of the characters in this game. This is largely a plot summary and consists of some WP:GAMETRIVIA and game guide material (for example, detailing how interacting with some characters "opens up" side quests, or how others can help improve your in-game skills) that contravenes WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article has already been discussed, and rejected. Why is it being brought up again? -FeralDruid (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the closing statement on the last AfD, you'll see that the lack of references was noted there, and as a result couldn't "in any good faith" be closed as a keep. There are still no references to demonstrate notability (as I stated in my deletion argument above). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of reliable sources and original research. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide or a collection of trivia. No improvement whatsoever to the pointed-out lack of sourcing in the first AFD 8 months ago. Roi must have read a different article from the one being discussed here, in terms of lack of demonstrated notability and presence of original research , or has a different understanding of the use of those terms in Wikipedia than the consensus of most editors. Edison (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, a tremendous amount of reliable secondary sources and unoriginal reseach exists and the consensus of the majority of editors who create and work on these articles (i.e. rather than the couple who vote to delete in random AfDs) is that these sources are sufficient enough for inclusion. Plus the article meets Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A google search does not equal the establishment of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The results in that search do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have any reliable third-party sources to meet the WP:V or WP:GNG requirements. Google search only reveals trivial mentions of the characters, or unreliable sources. Keep voters and article authors have not discharged their WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is on those arguing to delete, i.e. making an overwhelming case that this article can never be verified, merged, or redirected to justify deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's incorrect, and I have attempted to clarify our policy to you repeatedly. From WP:BURDEN (a subsection of WP:VERIFIABILITY):
    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  - If the sources exist, the burden is on you to produce them and cite them properly. I'm not even asking for a citation here: just show me some specific sources, because none of us have found any. As of now, a WP:Search engine test is insufficient. We need to see multiple reliable third-party sources that actually provide sufficient coverage to write an article. If you continue to be uncooperative with our WP:V policy, I hope you'd at least have the courtesy to refrain from filibustering and stonewalling. Perhaps there is another editor who can actually produce the sources that none of us have been able to find, and "proof by assertion" may prevent other editors from seeing my unfulfilled request. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The characters are specifically addressed in an interview as evidenced by the title of this IGN article and the subject of this video, and they are also referenced in out of universe context in [2], [3], [4], etc. Also, Icons of Horror and the Supernatural by S. T. Joshi discusses them on page 403. Surely, these sources can be used to write an article? And I see no reason why if I could find these sources, you couldn't instead of filibustering and stonewalling to get the article deleted here. Why not help look for sources that were relatively easy to find and help us to incorporate them into the article? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please assume good faith. I am not trying to stonewall or filibuster. I couldn't find sources, and the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep the information to provide adequate sources. I saw the sources you have produced, and they do not verify the contents of the article:
        The IGN article focuses on character design, and does not verify the major OR minor characters in this article.
        
        The 1up article also focuses on character design, and does not verify the contents of this article.
        
        The gamespy article focused on character design briefly, and then on combat. Still nothing that verifies the character information in this article.
        
        The gamespot article covers character design, and its impact on a "seduction" mechanic.
      - None of these sources WP:VERIFY ANY information on ANY of the major/minor characters in this article. Do you see why a google search isn't enough? The actual contents of the sources matters. The sheer mention of the subject matter is not enough, and sometimes even misleading and off-topic. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want me to assume good faith, then please do the same. They verify information on characters of Vampire: The Masquerade, i.e. some article on this topic. My suggestion is to use these sources to revise the article, but the subject as titled is notable enough while the article like practically all of our articles is an improveable work in progress. My sense from looking at Google books is that there's Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and it seems discourteous and unnecessary to expect volunteers to spring to action in five days. And I think we would accomplish more instead of having an AfD by using these sources to improve the article as best we can. Another approach is to search for individual characters mentioned in the article. Or [5]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can continue to assume good faith so long as you at least attempt to abide by our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. Not that I expect you to be infallible, but when someone points out your WP:BURDEN and you respond with proof by assertion, the discussion cannot move forward. I appreciate your effort to find sources, and hope you'll continue to look for sources in the future. Including this article, if you still believe that it's notable contrary to what several other editors have found.
        There is nothing discourteous about an AFD for notability issues, particularly when the article has been tagged for such issues since 2007 and efforts to find sources have failed. Assume good faith: we're trying to help maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and have given the article ample time to respond to the issues. The first step to assuming good faith would be to stop suggesting that the AFD process is inherently discourteous.
        The sources you have found cover a different but related topic. Preserving this article's contents, let alone its history, have no value. And it the notability of another topic neither helps nor harms this article. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My feeling is that this article meets the verifiability and notability guidelines based on the sources mentioned above and I see no persuasive reason to delete the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for producing the sources either way. Others can now read them and decide for themselves if they actually verify the subject of this article. Randomran (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Happy to help. Have a pleasant night! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article's content is drawn entirely from game guides and the game itself. Primary sources can be used for verification but not to establish notability, and game guides likewise. The sources provided discuss game content, but do not discuss the characters. The difference is elementary if one considers that Lara Croft has an article separate from Tomb Raider - this is because there are sources which actually have Lara Croft herself as the subject. No non-gameguide sources of that type exist for this article for the simple reason that the characters therein simply aren't as notable. And if they're not notable, they are not article material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above reliable non-game guide secondary sources exist for the topic as titled; please help to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to cite reliable sources in contravention of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources have been presented above and you can help us to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've provided a Google search and Randomran has already explained why that isn't enough. This is heading for WP:IDHT territory. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The results in the Google search are enough by any reasonable standard. We should be working together to incorporate them into the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive plot information and game guide material. Absolutely no sources to verify any content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the sources presented above; that statement is simply not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No reliable sources (NOTE: I am not happy about the sources presented above - so don't lecture me about them). --Hank Pym (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid topic outside the scope of what is appropriate in the main article on the subject, necessitating a subarticle. Add references. Everyking (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. The present article is entirely plot summary, and as such inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have independent sources on real-world aspects, then first the main article on the game should be expanded using these sources (it could really use some!), and only if this is not possible, breaking out a "subarticle" should be considered. (And even then, the concept of this subarticle should be radically different from what it is now.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fix, in this case, is to remove the inappropriate material. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be better to add the sources discussed above and even in the worst case scenario, I am not seeing any compelling reason we wouldn't merge and redirect without deletion to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines#Characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability to meet WP:NOTE. No need for a character list for a single game. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability * criterion only applied to the pages on the series taken all together, and I think it would be agreed that the series as a whole is notable. Everything else is a mater of editing. This is a split subpage to get the material of characters together without making the main page too long for some browsers. Demonstrating its separate notability is irrelevant, so the various deletion arguments above above are none of them based on policy and can be rejected in toto. There are only two questions 1/is the series important enough that a paragraph or two on each of the characters is necessary,and b/ where should the be put, on the single main article, on individual pages for each character, or on a combination page like this. Personally, I think this sort of combination page is the obvious compromise except for the truly most important series where there is sufficient information on the main characters to justify individual pages on each.I a therefore very troubled by those who want to delete compromise pages like this one. If they think our coverage of these topics is excessive--a tenable view, though one i do not agree with--they should support such ages and I would expect a chorus of enthusiastic keeps. Only if they ant to reduce the coverage of the topic to the bare minimum would they want to remove pages like this, so I assume its their objective. Its an objective which, like all other extreme positions, such as including only 1st place winners in the Olympics, that will be harmful to the encyclopedia. Its an extreme deletionism--the only thing left to do after that is to not cover fiction at all--I've heard that proposed also. (Just for the record, though not really relevant since this is not a stand alone article, 1/ plot and characters are different though related elements of fiction, and NOT PLOT means only what it says, that our overall coverage should not be about plot exclusively. 2/content can be drawn from primary and closely related secondary sources if it is not controversial 3/ there was a challenge for sources,and GRdC supplied them. That the nom had not found them indicated an inadequate and careless nomination in the first place. This does not however satisfy the challenger, who will presumably find some reason to challenge and source brought forward. very source brought as not being substantial enough. In short, this is the sort of good and appropriate combination article which we ought to have a central to our coverage of these topics. DGG (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely disagree. There is no free pass for including plot summary material (rather than, as per WP:NOT#PLOT, sourced analysis) in arbitrary amounts in separate articles, once the main article passes WP:N. Rather, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, separate articles should only be created from a fully developed article, and if they separately meet WP:N. In the case at hand, already the main article, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, consists to a good deal of plot summary. A separate article just to add more of it is unwarranted. The fine distinction between "plot" and "characters" that you try to introduce is something that I cannot see in WP:NOT#PLOT; what we have here is plot summary, just in a reorganized form. And if we really want to boil it down to that level: The article does not serve the project's goal, to create an encyclopedia about the real world. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the topic is important to people in the real world it is consistent with the project's goal, otherwise over 5,000 people would not visit the article each month and numerous editors would not volunteer their time to build the article and argue to keep it across two AfDs now. A handful of editors unwilling to work on it does not trump that overwhelming reality that the community believes this article passes WP:N, is an acceptable spinoff or sub-article, and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG sums it up well, it is a spinout list in effect, spun out due to length reasons. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (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.

August 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep now that multiple sources have been found. Wizardman 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solium Infernum

Prodded article. Although not explicitly contested, the number of edits made by the creator after prodding counts as an implicit contestation. Those edits, however, failed to address the issue mentioned in the prod notice. This article is about a video game that will be released next year by a minor developper. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the game's release. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of a waste to delete the article only to recreate it once the game has been released. Cryptic Comet's last game, Armageddon Empires, has been deemed notable, and while CC is only an indie developer (a one man band, I think) it's still created a notable game. I don't know why SI would be any different?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is standard practice. The article will have to be rewritten from scratch anyway after release, and if the company fails to release the game, we won't have an orphaned article taking up some disk space with no one looking at it. If it were a widely advertized future release (as was the case with Grand Theft Auto IV), that would be a different story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's a bit POV. There should be more behind our consideration than what budget the game has, how much advertising it received, or the size of the company releasing it. Armageddon Empires didn't get much advertising (I never saw any), and was made by the same company, but it's notable. Or did it only become notable after release?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, it became notable only some time after release, when sales proved to be good. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not the Harry Potter of video games. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I actually do not see how it would be a "waste" to delete the article. The AfD meanwhile has more content than the one on the subject. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Someoneanother's research. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rock Paper Shotgun preview by Kieron Gillen, Fidgit response, mentioned at the tail end of this interview. The point at which WP:CRYSTAL is successfully invoked has been shifting, articles on future games have been popping up and evolving as more information becomes available. In terms of notability and it being a minor developer, though coverage of indie games, MMOs and other more niche-market stuff is still a long way from broad and consistent, it has improved to the point that when multiple reliable sources are jumping all over a game at this point of development, it is very likely that it's already notable and will become more so as it progresses, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortex command. Someone another 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that creating articles at this point of development was a waste of time, but after witnessing several AFDs which resulted in keep I've come to the conclusion that the AFDs themselves make more work than just citing and writing, the article is inevitably recreated shortly after and sticks because sources are cited. If the article is started with the usual headings then it's possible to keep adding to them as more information becomes available, keeping rewriting to a minimum. Previews can always be replaced with reviews when it comes to the gameplay section, if something brought up in previews turns out to not be featured in the finished game then that information becomes development info rather than gameplay, cut, paste and trim. Someone another 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Someoneanother, who has found sources to demonstrate notability. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL to the extent that we're covering the development of a notable game, which is no more WP:CRYSTAL than covering the US Presidential Election before we know who wins (although I won't say which one is more important to the fate of the world). Randomran (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (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.

August 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Within: The Dark Lineage

Contested PROD. Article cannot show any verifiable, third-party sources (Gametrailers does not count.) establishing any notability about this future game. Hence, this fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though I was going to agree that there's really nothing to base an article on at this point, it's just a trailer with one reaction to it in the external links and another here, I just can't see the point in knocking it down when it's going to spring up again the moment the next source appears. The only difference between this and any other future game stub is that it's a trailer rather than a fluff-piece 'interview', there's still reaction to it from reliable sources which indicates more will be covering it. Someone another 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and See (weak keep), maybe redirect, but hiding the history is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. I don't think WP:CBALL applies to a game with a released teaser that says it'll be out in less than a year. The previous game did make it onto mainstream media's radar, so this isn't a case of "Unknown indie game syndrome". Nifboy (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Not a hoax, looks to be a legitimate sequel from a notable publisher and notable game studio. A trailer exists. This is less WP:CBALL and more documenting a current event: the development of an upcoming video game. Give it time. Randomran (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (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

- Silkroad Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silkroad Online (12 August 2008 – 17 August 2008) Delete
- Alexey Yanushevsky at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Yanushevsky (10 August 2008 – 16 August 2008) Keep
- Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles (31 July 2008 – 15 August 2008) No Consensus
- Stilwater at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stilwater (9 August 2008 – 14 August 2008) Redirect to Saints Row
- Game Industry Map at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Industry Map (9 August 2008 – 14 August 2008) Delete
- UKTrainSim.com at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKTrainSim.com (9 August 2008 – 14 August 2008) Delete
- Arathi at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arathi (10 August 2008 – 14 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Hasslevania at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasslevania (7 August 2008 – 13 August 2008) Delete
- Alien Shooter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Shooter (5 August 2008 – 13 August 2008) Delete
- Navigation keys at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigation keys (8 August 2008 – 12 August 2008) Redirect to Arrow keys
- WASD keys at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASD keys (2nd nomination) (8 August 2008 – 12 August 2008) Merge to Arrow keys
- Knight Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight Online (5 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Keep
- Helibomber at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helibomber (6 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Delete
- 737 Flight Simulator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/737 Flight Simulator (6 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Delete
- Iceman (game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceman (game) (6 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Delete
- Steve Thompson (game developer) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Thompson (game developer) (6 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Delete
- Lego Harry Potter: the Video Game at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Harry Potter: the Video Game (6 August 2008 – 11 August 2008) Delete
- Army Men: World War-Team Assault at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Men: World War-Team Assault (6 August 2008 – 10 August 2008) Delete
- Dream On Contest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream On Contest (5 August 2008 – 10 August 2008) Delete
- Oolite (computer game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oolite (computer game) (5 August 2008 – 10 August 2008) Keep
- Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em (9 August 2008 – 10 August 2008) Keep
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template/ at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template/ (23 July 2008 – 10 August 2008) Delete
- JediMUD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JediMUD (4 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Keep
- Guitar Praise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Praise (4 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Delete
- Caine (World of Darkness) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caine (World of Darkness) (4 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Delete
- Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat) (4 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Delete
- Minor Deus Ex characters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Deus Ex characters (4 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Delete
- OpenArena at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenArena (2 August 2008 – 9 August 2008) Keep
- Potatology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potatology (5 August 2008 – 8 August 2008) Speedy Delete
- Donkey Kong racing games at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong racing games (3 August 2008 – 8 August 2008) Delete
- SWGEmu at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWGEmu (second nomination) (3 August 2008 – 8 August 2008) Delete
- Discipline (World of Darkness) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness) (3 August 2008 – 8 August 2008) Delete
- Generation (World of Darkness) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation (World of Darkness) (2 August 2008 – 7 August 2008) Delete
- Stuart Dalton at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Dalton (5 August 2008 – 7 August 2008) Speedy Delete
- Donk! at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donk! (5 August 2008 – 7 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Flightstick at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightstick (6 August 2008) Redirect to Joystick
- Cool Herders at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Herders (30 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Delete
- 123123 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123123 (6 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Informatist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatist (30 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Delete
- Habbo Big Brother at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbo Big Brother (30 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Delete
- Childe (World of Darkness) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness) (29 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) No Consensus
- Astro empires at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro empires (29 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Delete
- Freekick at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freekick (29 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Delete
- Birmingham Salvo at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Salvo (29 July 2008 – 6 August 2008) Merge to List of Championship Gaming Series teams
- Albion (Fable) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion (Fable) (5 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- List of Cogs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs (30 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) Delete
- Red Alert: A Path Beyond at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert: A Path Beyond (2nd nomination) (2 August 2008 – 5 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- The GOAT Store at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The GOAT Store (28 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) Delete
- List of units in the Age of Mythology series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (28 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) No Consensus
- All Stars (video game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Stars (video game) (28 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) Delete
- Starbattle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbattle (31 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) Delete
- Horse Isle (video game) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse Isle (video game) (2nd nomination) (31 July 2008 – 5 August 2008) Delete
- DeFRaG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFRaG (2nd nomination) (2 August 2008 – 4 August 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Broken Crescent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken Crescent (28 July 2008 – 4 August 2008) Delete
- The Many at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Many (28 July 2008 – 3 August 2008) Delete
- TrueCombat: Elite at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueCombat: Elite (2nd nomination) (28 July 2008 – 3 August 2008) Delete
- Nar Shaddaa at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nar Shaddaa (28 July 2008 – 3 August 2008) Redirect to List of Star Wars planets
- Nicktoons: Planet Quest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons: Planet Quest (3 August 2008) Speedy Delete
- The'Galin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The'Galin (27 July 2008 – 3 August 2008) Delete
- BuzzerBeater at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuzzerBeater (29 July 2008 – 3 August 2008) Delete
- Nintendo DS game card at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo DS game card (1 August 2008) Speedy Delete
- List of Leaders in Panzer General II at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leaders in Panzer General II (2nd nomination) (27 July 2008 – 1 August 2008) Delete
- Embrace (World of Darkness) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embrace (World of Darkness) (27 July 2008 – 1 August 2008) Delete
- Diablo: The Hell at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diablo: The Hell (27 July 2008 – 1 August 2008) Delete
- List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series (26 July 2008 – 31 July 2008) Delete
- Caerlon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caerlon (26 July 2008 – 31 July 2008) Delete
- Atlantica Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantica Online (26 July 2008 – 31 July 2008) Keep
- Telejano at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telejano (18 July 2008 – 30 July 2008) Delete
- N4G at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4G (24 July 2008 – 30 July 2008) Keep
- Midwest Gaming Classic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Gaming Classic (24 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Combine Destiny at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Destiny (24 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Delete
- Sadikahu at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadikahu (22 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Redirect to SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs
- Battle of the Last Stand at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Last Stand (24 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Delete
- Dan Potter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Potter (23 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Delete
- Golf (Virtual Boy) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf (Virtual Boy) (24 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Keep
- V-Tetris at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-Tetris (24 July 2008 – 29 July 2008) Keep
- Seeds of Time Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Time Online (22 July 2008 – 28 July 2008) Delete
- Llama (computer culture) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llama (computer culture) (2 nomination) (22 July 2008 – 27 July 2008) Delete
- Manager-Mania at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manager-Mania (21 July 2008 – 26 July 2008) Speedy Delete
- E-Sports Entertainment Association at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sports Entertainment Association (21 July 2008 – 26 July 2008) Speedy Delete
- Duke Nukem Trilogy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem Trilogy (23 July 2008 – 25 July 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- Square Enix Music Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square Enix Music Online (17 July 2008 – 25 July 2008) Delete
- Stoned Fish Gaming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoned Fish Gaming (19 July 2008 – 25 July 2008) Delete
- Project Powder at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Powder (18 July 2008 – 24 July 2008) Delete
- List of controversial video games at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial video games (17 July 2008 – 24 July 2008) No Consensus
- Penguin Chat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penguin Chat (17 July 2008 – 24 July 2008) Merge to Club Penguin
- InkBall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InkBall (20 July 2008 – 24 July 2008) Keep
- Baroque Shooting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baroque Shooting (14 July 2008 – 23 July 2008) Delete
- Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games (15 July 2008 – 23 July 2008) Delete
- Donkey Kong Wii at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong Wii (3rd nomination) (19 July 2008 – 23 July 2008) Delete
- Arcanists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcanists (17 July 2008 – 23 July 2008) Delete
- The Ratchet & Clank Wiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ratchet & Clank Wiki (14 July 2008 – 22 July 2008) Delete
- Hornby Virtual Railway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornby Virtual Railway (22 July 2008) Nomination Withdrawn
- List of Pokémon items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items (2nd nomination) (17 July 2008 – 22 July 2008) Delete
- Pokémon types at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) (17 July 2008 – 22 July 2008) Delete
- List of Pokémon moves at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon moves (21 July 2008) Speedy Delete
- Akanea at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akanea (16 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) Redirect to Fire Emblem
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Noticeboard at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Noticeboard (13 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) Keep
- List of Ace Combat characters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ace Combat characters (11 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) No Consensus
- List of nations of Ace Combat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nations of Ace Combat (11 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) No Consensus
- Militaries of Ace Combat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militaries of Ace Combat (11 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) No Consensus
- Organizations of Ace Combat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of Ace Combat (11 July 2008 – 21 July 2008) Delete
- David Zhang at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zhang (15 July 2008 – 20 July 2008) Delete
- List of Ace Attorney cases at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ace Attorney cases (14 July 2008 – 20 July 2008) Delete
- Primal Evil at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Evil (14 July 2008 – 20 July 2008) Delete
- Ring of Varda at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring of Varda (19 July 2008 – 20 July 2008) Redirect to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
- Eternal Lands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Lands (14 July 2008 – 19 July 2008) Keep
- Slowrun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slowrun (12 July 2008 – 18 July 2008) Delete}
- The Mana World at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World (13 July 2008 – 18 July 2008) Delete

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 {{VGDeletionday|2008|August|17}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Witch Parfait}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlefield 3 (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcade perfect}}