Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Julia Chang

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

While I recognize Kazama has put a massive amount of work into this over the year, I think if anything when the dust settled it showed the real problem with the article: when trimmed down, there's nothing actually *said*. Unlike Michelle Chang where there is discussion about her as a Native American and representation within the Tekken series as well as gaming as a whole, Julia's reception is more rooted in "she's popular" and "fans wanted her back", with citations of players and not statements from reliable secondary sources themselves analyzing the character. The one source discussing Julia's cultural background and analyzing it is more because she's related to Michelle as that character's daughter.

I want to stress that again, a lot of work has been put into this article. But a WP:BEFORE, and what's here, both illustrate there's no meat on this bone and that was the case before he started working on this. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns

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

I decided to do a source search for this film out of curiosity, as I'm interested in trying to improve another Mewtwo-centric film, Mewtwo Strikes Back, in the future. There is very little in the way of coverage. Outside of watch guides, the only sources are a single announcement from Comicbook.com about the film's manga adaptation (Which is mostly just a WP:ROUTINE news announcement), and a brief one paragraph summary in a book source. (It's self-published by a movie critic named Doug Pratt. Unsure of his reliability since Google gives me conflicting results for which Doug Pratt this is). There is also an IGN listicle that is primarily a plot synopsis, but technically has extremely sparse amounts of coverage. I'll link the three below so editors can make their own opinions:

https://comicbook.com/anime/news/pokemon-mewtwo-returns-manga-adaptation-anime/

https://www.ign.com/articles/best-pokemon-movies

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Doug_Pratt_s_DVD/vxmg-LuBTWIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Pok%C3%A9mon:+Mewtwo+Returns%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA944&printsec=frontcover

This was all I could turn up. The current sources used in the article are a press release (Which is PRIMARY) and a book source, which, from what little I could get out of the preview, just seems to be a summary of Toho published films and nothing more, with no depth of significant coverage from what I can garner. This leaves this article with maybe two sources that are significant coverage, and it could be less depending on which Doug Pratt wrote that book. There is literally no coverage on this film that I can find beyond this. Given the lack of coverage, I don't believe this film meets the GNG due to a distinct lack of SIGCOV. A viable AtD for this film is to "List of Pokémon films," where this film is listed already. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the links provided in the nomination are to 2 short reviews, so with the rest of the existing coverage, I think a page can be retained but if others disagree, redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials, and merge and add sources (indeed listed there). The film was adapted in a book series in 2019; https://natalie.mu/comic/news/334745 and, the same year, in a 3D remake https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2140041/full/) Significant coverage: https://filmaga.filmarks.com/articles/2893/3/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Thank you for doing a double check through JP sources to see if I missed anything. To clarify, the 3D remake is for Pokémon: Mewtwo Strikes Back – Evolution, a remake of Pokémon: The First Movie, which are entirely separate films. I mentioned the manga announcement in my nom, but the JP source is basically the same in terms of info as the Comicbook source, and is similarly just covering the work's announcement, so I'm not sure it's very helpful for showing significant coverage, as this would also fall under ROUTINE.

The significant coverage source (Filmaga) is primarily just a one paragraph synopsis. The source primarily focuses on Pokémon: The First Movie, and the paragraph on this film acts as part of a brief summary for other appearances of Mewtwo rather than acting as the main focus of the article, so I'm not sure if it falls under Wikipedia:SIGCOV at all, and even then it wouldn't help with Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as it's mostly plot details and nothing more. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials - None of the above sources are SIGCOV (including Filmaga, it's just a short paragraph) but Rotten Tomatoes lists reviews by film critic Christopher Null and DVD Talk. Unfortunately Null's review is a permanent dead link: [1], you can also see the review listed here: [2]. So that leaves only the DVD Talk review, which isn't enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon: The First Movie as the closest thing to it. I am not convinced it passes GNG, even if the missing review were found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Araya (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bloody Disgusting ref is a news announcement, not significant coverage. Reviews in azralynn.com and the two additional reviews listed at Mobygames: [3] (Brash Games, GameAwards.ru) are self published sources, no indication that they are reliable. Brash Games is also listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Thailand. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of in-depth coverage in Thai[4][5][6], including a scoop on Thai PBS [7]. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looky (Rainbow Friends)

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

Fails GNG. PROD was removed. C F A 💬 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is so obviously not notable, its a waste of time to further humor this user let's just get rid of this garbage. The mini-game in Roblox that these characters are supposedly from doesn't even have it's own article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable character in a non-notable game. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rainbow Friends itself isn’t notable. 2 WP:PRIMARY and 1 possible RS, on its little paragraph in List of Roblox games. Why would its characters be? ^{(maybe I’m tripping over WP:NOTINHERITED’s common arguments to avoid, but oh well.)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources present that indicate any notability for this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Origin was not even notable in the first place and the fact this article exists is just ridiculous. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Little character from a non-notable game. Babysharkboss2!! ^(Hardwired!) 15:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more children's non-notable media items. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcutter

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

This game only has one full review from a RS; the Digitally Downloaded piece just paraphrases the official announcement, Collectors' Editions is more of a database source without significant coverage, and Analog Stick Gaming is run by two people with limited industry experience and qualifications. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But don't ignore that one IGN source that covers the game in detail - I have definitely come across game articles here that only have one big RS and it passed. I have just added three non-English reviews from publications that might be suitable. FYI the Nintendo-Master site seems to have been cited in articles on the French Wikipedia. Sceeegt (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots of reviews. All non-RS? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any actual RS reviews besides the one mentioned by the nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across game articles before that relied on one major RS. While not ideal, it is at least something that adds to notability. Sceeegt (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking over the sources, even those on the talk page, they're all pretty trivial or short statements. Chao on their own are an interesting concept, but there's less said about them as their own thing as a fictional species and more as a minigame aspect of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, and even as that game mechanic the conversation feels lacking and non-notable.

Even doing a WP:BEFORE I didn't find anything to dissuade that opinion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. No independent notability of the subject, but surprisingly the Chao aren't actually on the list yet (And linked at Chaos for some reason? I get he's a mutated Chao but beyond that there's very little association.) Several detailed searches have been done in the past and turned up nothing but review quotes or similar, and many of the current refs constitute as Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do think that the Chao Garden itself is marginally notable. [14] [15] [16] However, this article is unsalvageable and would require a total rewrite to fulfill notability, centered around the minigame rather than the actual creatures. It shouldn't be left as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's state is dreadful, but the Chao / Chao Garden definitely meet notability requirements. From a quick Google search I found a Nintendo Life feature, two articles on a Chao-inspired game, multiple articles on Iizuka's announcement there wouldn't be a standalone Chao game ([17][18], [19]), and a few articles on a Chao Garden fan game (Polygon, Kotaku), all filled with commentary that could be integrated in this article. It might be worth reworking this into a Chao Garden-focused article instead of having it as a Chao article, as sources more describe the mode as a whole than the characters specifically. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zx mentioned that also and I do agree, the mini game may have some notability. The chao themselves though, not so much, and this whole article would have to be rewritten to focus on Chao Garden.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable aspect of the Sonic the Hedgehog series with a good amount of independent sources. Article needs revisions to be a good article, but otherwise it's good to stay. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you are referring to the above mentioned sources, the Chao themselves and the Chao Garden minigame are an important distinction. The article as currently written is all about Chao as a being and only slightly mentions the Chao Garden. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then rename it into "Chao Garden" per above. I don't see any reason on why this article should remain, until some actual sigcov have been discovered. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Schmitz

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

A graphic artist who has worked on a number of significant games, but the sources presented and available don't focus on the person, or show compliance with WP:ARTIST Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any reliable sourcing online and the current citation do not show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_oculus_by_cory_schmitz_mackey_saturday_and_nicolaus_taylor.php			graphics are not visible	✘ No
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-conversation-with-cory-schmitz-graphic-designer-for-playstation-oculus-indie-games-and-more-526/			interview	✘ No
https://thefoxisblack.com/2013/09/03/cory-schmitz-brings-bold-contemporary-design-to-the-world-of-video-games/	?	?	? dead link	? Unknown
https://famicase.com/17/softs/033.html	?	?	promotional listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Gravity Rush (franchise)

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

Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Crime (series) recently closed as delete, this article is suffering from the same problems. Gravity Rush, as a series, fails WP:GNG, and also goes against the guidelines established in WP:VG/POP#Remakes, expansions, and series articles (there are only 2 games and a film that is not yet in production) OceanHok (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd agree that pretty much all of this is redundant with the page of the first Gravity Rush game and doesn't need to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant: all is covered in the game articles. Cameo appearances are actually covered twice since they're also in Kat (Gravity Rush)#Appearances. --Mika1h (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned, there's been a longstanding consensus that 2 entries in a series isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone series article, because generally all content can conceptually fit in either the existing first or second articles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OceanHok. Not all series need a separate article. With only two original games, this continuity is already covered at the article about the first game. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Repeats info of two games adequately explained in their own article and the film can be merged into the article of the original game. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HellCup

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

Given sources don't show any evidence of WP:GNG, the first one being just match results and the second one being a user-editable wiki. A WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much except more GosuGamers match results. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mid-tier Counter-Strike tournament series that has been around for a while, but there is little to no coverage of the events. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Bus

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

Not notable besides its brief appearance on Angry Video Game Nerd. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability. Gumboot! 🌵 ^(talk) 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was deleted before with far less to establish notability (and I would have agreed). Having recreated the page, I would now argue that there is more notability to the game than just AVGN. The soundtrack is regarded by multiple outlets as notable for its bad quality, and a Venezuelan university report mentions its legacy of bringing attention to games in Venezuela. Whether AVGN promoting it led to more people paying attention shouldn't imo be a disqualifier. JSwift49 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JSwift49 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep. A decent amount of sources demonstrated its independent notability, even if the article does require some rewrites to be in a more readable state.

By the way, article had been marked with copyright violations due to the article previously hosting lyrics to a song from Arthur which is obviously still copyrighted and the lyrics are still in article history. It has no effect on this article's deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stuff about the soundtrack comes from Screenrant and CBR, sites long known as non-indicative of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added Vice and The Music soundtrack coverage as well. JSwift49 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VICE doesn't seem half bad, but it only specifically points out the title theme, leaving open the question of whether it's actually coverage of the game itself. WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail".

The Music is only a sentence or two. Not significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSwift49. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial (Ed Sheeran song)

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

I had previously BOLDly BLAR'd this article, redirecting and merging content to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. This was reverted with a request to take this to AfD, hence this nomination. My rationale for the original BLAR was because of a sheer lack of significant coverage on this song. There are quite literally no sources discussing impact or popularity, whether that be in the form of reviews, editorial pieces, or just opinion pieces. All that exists are news pieces discussing its announcement, and the bulk of these are primarily within the span of the first two weeks following its reveal, showing a notable WP:SUSTAINED issue, as all sources after that are announcements over its remix in the DLCs (Which don't really say that much beyond confirming that it exists and nothing more), trivial mentions, or mentions in unreliable sources.

While it's charted a lot, per WP:NSONGS, this does not outright indicate notability, only that there may be a chance at notability. The content here is relatively small, with the bulk of this article's text just being charting and release information. Per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page," and " Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page" Pokémon Scarlet and Violet's article contains information on the entire soundtrack of the game, of which Sheeran's song is included. It is overall more helpful to readers to be able to read about information relating to Celestial in a section that also covers other associated music, allowing them to get an understanding of the wider context surrounding this song, while not needing to go to a separate, unneeded split to get a full understanding of the game's soundtrack.

As a result of the above points, I don't see why this article meets individual, standalone notability, and I believe it is better off merged into Scarlet and Violet's article, where its information can be preserved and better appreciated by readers. The contents of my previous merger, as well as an additional merger of some content at the request of Ss112, who reverted my initial BLAR, are present at SV's article at present, which should help illustrate that this article is small enough to where its content can be slotted into an article subsection. While charting is not yet present, this can likely be added without being a detriment to page length by including drop-down menus that can be expanded by reader choice. I hope this helps clarify my rationale for my prior BLAR, and my current rationale for believing this is not suited for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ss112, who reverted my BLAR, to offer their thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I am very aware of WP:NSONGS and quote it regularly myself, charting this extensively—making the top 10 in the UK, the top 40 in Europe and other regions, appearing on multiple year-end charts, and being certified in at least four countries, along with the already present media coverage—makes this a truly baffling BOLD redirect and nomination. Redirecting to a Pokémon article makes it appear that the extent of its existence is being made for those games and that it achieved nothing else, and that's clearly not true. There is also still media coverage on this, and as stated at the nominator's talk page, I do not believe what is on the article at present is the extent of it. Songs also don't need to have continuing nor "sustained" relevance let alone an "impact" in the current day to have been notable in the year of their release—I don't know what that's about. WP:SUSTAINED states that short bursts of news coverage "may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", but as stated, the perhaps meagre news coverage at the time of its release is not all the song achieved nor is the extent of its notability. Ss112 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified that I have done several BEFORE searches on this subject. This is almost certainly the extent of the coverage, at least in terms of what I could find. Almost every source I could find stated mostly the same things about release information, namely that it was made by Ed Sheeran and was featured in and made for a Pokémon game. What other information I could find was charting information and the like cited here.

Perhaps it's due to a difference between how the music side of Wikipedia handles subject notability and how I'm used to it in my subject areas, but to me SUSTAINED coverage is needed to show that this subject had a long-term impact beyond the scope of its release. The lack of real coverage I discussed in my nomination makes that difficult to see. Additionally, I feel your argument isn't really fulfilling Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sources to verify that this song had a lasting impact, and we need sources to show those charting numbers have an impact beyond being just numbers on a list. It all comes down to sources, and these are sources that I could not find during my search per what I have already clarified in my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't feel that "my argument" fulfils WP:V? What do I need to verify in what I said? Songs do not need to have a "lasting impact" to be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as pointed out by QuietHere below, the song appears on multiple year-end lists, meaning it has had sustained success for at least two years in several regions. Oh, but those are meaningless "numbers on a list" and we should redirect to a Pokémon video game article—righto. Three keep votes and counting. Continuing to argue with everybody who disagrees does not help. Like you said, you really do not understand music notability and you've proven that twice now. Ss112 06:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per below discussion, you haven't provided any sourcing actually verifying that these numbers on charts mean anything. I've read and familiarized myself with Wikipedia:NSONGS before this discussion when formulating my rationale, and it says that these charts are only an indicator of notability, and don't actually provide it; this means that they need significant coverage to back them up, and there is very little in the way of Wikipedia:SIGCOV (As shown by Kung Fu Man below) that justifies why this needs the separation I specified with my Wikipedia:NOPAGE argument. We need sources illustrating that this song is notable to back up what charts exist, hence my WP:V argument, and we need them to show this song and its charts had an impact beyond just basic announcements, as those are just Wikipedia:ROUTINE news coverage that do not count toward subject notability. I hope this clarifies what I mean a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that comes down to how one defines "trivial". I personally don't find the coverage that exists on "Celestial" on the article and out there at present to be "trivial", although I conceded above that it might be considered "meagre" by some. WP:NSONGS also literally says "songs and singles are probably notable" if they have been the subject of these works, not that they are only notable when they have been the subject of said works. There is also notability besides charting—it has been certified. That is not covered by the first point of NSONGS, as certifications are neither "music or sales charts" nor are they always tied to such. I am not going to agree with you. I already know what your point is so it is immaterial to me how much you continue to clarify your point. Ss112 18:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting and certifications. If you're concerned about SUSTAINED, it is worth noting that the charts span multiple years, meaning it appeared on those charts for at least a few months. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of national charts here is astounding. Songs don't chart like this globally and then fail to scrounge up a handful of GNG-satisfying sources. It's near logistically impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I did multiple Wikipedia:BEFOREs for this and turned up nothing. I'm not making this rationale assuming there's no sources, I genuinely found nothing beyond what I mentioned in my nom. If significant coverage large enough to satisfy both notability and Wikipedia:NOPAGE is found, then I'm willing to withdraw, but I make this nom only out of a severe concern for a lack of actual coverage outside of its charts, which don't indicate notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted in 20+ counties and went Gold in 4 of them. That's extremely mainstream. I'm trying to think of a video game equivalent so you can understand how unlikely of a scenario what you're proposing in this nomination is to the music Wikiproject members. Probably the equivalent of nominating a Bravely Default or a Paper Mario level-game for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of confusion there is that with games there's still at least something, you know, *said* in terms of analysis, reaction or at least anything. Even with games, just winning an award alone would mean as much as the reviews discussing the title. It's jarring to see it in contrast to the hurdles with fictional characters, where the closest parallel to it would be "did you see how much media that character appeared in? They must be notable!"

Why is charting alone sufficient when we demand so much more from every other aspect related to the video game project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that charting alone is enough, it's just the logistical absurdity in situations like this, where a song is a global hit, but editors think that there aren't a few articles out there somewhere. Maybe a more apt comparison is when misguided editors talk about nominating video game icons like Mario or Sonic for deletion because they chose to ignore their obvious massive legacy in favor of a poor Google search result? (That's probably a bit generous to Sheeran's song here, but still.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, that's just WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST though, isn't it? But with what I was able to find at all, that's just enough for barely a paragraph, and all of it ties to Scarlet and Violet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love citing that essay too, but I don't think it should be a substitute for using common sense either. How does a song get played prominently in 20+ countries, get certified Gold in 4 separate countries, and make multiple year-end charts, and not have 2-3 sources written about it? It's logistically impossible. I think this is one of those situations where nominators get so caught up in the letter of the policies/guidelines that they forget the actual purpose of what we're trying to do here. When we create guidelines to prevent trivial, non-notable items of music from having articles, were they really trying to eliminate content like this? Are we really saying that a massive pop star collaborated with arguably one of the biggest franchises in existence, and its output, while a global commercial success, isn't notable? I don't like invoking WP:IAR, but if the guidelines miss the mark this badly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Bravely Default and Paper Mario actually have significant coverage attached to them. I can Google one of their games and find tons of reviews, information on the game's development with a bit of digging. I've dug a fair bit into this subject and already told you about the results. Notability cannot be assumed from statistics; this argument so far has come across to me as an argument of "It has to be important," rather than something actually grounded in any form of guideline or policy. If notability came from solely statistics, then BFDI would have an article by now with how many views that series has racked up on Youtube.

Just because it's unlikely or seems inconceivable doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd recommend doing a BEFORE before making assumptions on the subject's breadth of coverage, as if there is actually coverage I missed, then you'd be able to more effectively disprove some of my arguments, which mostly hinge on the breadth of coverage I have already discussed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know of that difference, it was just a reference point, not a 1:1 comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. Doing a hard dig found really not a whole lot for discussion: a review by the Harvard Crimson, though this is a student paper. There's also three links ([20] [21] [22] that discuss Toby Fox remixing it for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet, one of the first mods for that game removing it, and people getting DMCA'd because it's the end credits song. The rest is just announcements about the song and video with some breakdowns of the video, but no commentary for notability. Additionally couldn't find discussion observing it on the charts. While there can be a reception section built here, it really hinges a lot on whether the Harvard Crimson is usable as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't accept The Harvard Crimson as a source, because students are not music critics. Regardless, I do not feel that we need a reception section. Ss112 06:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without it then we have a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument that isn't held up, as there's barely enough meat here for 3 sentences tying it to a video game, and a light blurb about inspiration. That's not a lot of indication of stand alone notability in practice. Even the one Rolling Stone reference I found said little. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm going to go with a merge; all the arguments up here as I pointed out rely on "it charted heavily, so there must be sources, so it's notable". While on paper that sounds feasible, we've seen plenty of cases with other subjects such as fictional characters where it is not i.e. (Diddy Kong, Odie), and as stated above the material that does show notability is tied directly to those games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've spent so much time arguing the absurdity of the nomination that I hadn't bothered digging into the sourcing. Not sure if this is another case of setting the bar too high? Because I'm seeing pretty mainstream coverage.

Granted, they're not the deepest of dives, but they're dedicated articles by extremely reputable sources approved by WP:VG/S, WP:RSMUSIC, and WP:RSP, and that's all that the GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONG with significant national charting मल्ल (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that continuing to debate solely about sourcing is just going to wind up with a lot of mixed and very heated opinions, so I feel it best to change gears to the other major concern with this article: size. I do feel the WP:NOPAGE rationale I addressed above has been sidelined a bit by the sourcing discussions, and it does address both sides' concerns, and may be a viable way of addressing this in a bit more cut and dry manner. I've outlined my NOPAGE concerns above already, so I don't see a need to restate them again, but this would preserve literally all of the page's information, without losing anything in the process, in a section where it can be adequately discussed alongside other music relating to SV. This article is unlikely to expand further and perfectly coverable in another page, so why not cover the information there? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice your user page suggests you're working on a Pokemon WP:GOODTOPIC. While I appreciate when the GA/GT process motivates editors to improve content, I equally strongly oppose editors attempts to use it as a rationale to delete articles. So if that is what this is all about, I object to its deletion/merger even stronger. I find that approach to be highly contradictory to the prospect of building an encyclopedia. The GA/GT process is not a metric for subjects having stand alone articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just agree with notability standards that are applied site wide that I believe should be upheld. I'm working on Pokémon Good Topics, but if a topic doesn't pan out, it doesn't pan out. Even a brief view at my user page shows that the topic I'm most actively working on isn't even related to Celestial, so I don't see how these two things are even correlated unless you want to directly accuse me of unfounded claims that I'm acting in bad faith. Directly opposing my suggestions solely on a bad faith assumption is an even worse standard to uphold, especially as a site administrator. Please keep this strictly to policy-based discussions, and if you want to accuse me of bad faith, please do so on my talk page, as this kind of thing is not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed countless other reasons why I object to this absurd nomination beyond this hypothesis. This was merely an attempt to get understand why you're pushing so hard on this, as I do run upon this misguided mindset on occasion. If it's not true in your case, then so be it, everything else I said still stands (along with everyone else so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the BBC and Rolling Stone sources above are enough for this to meet WP:GNG and this charted across the world besides. Deletion is not necessary imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, it does seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somequest

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

This developer does not meet WP:NCORP, and their games are not individually notable.

The PlayStation Blog article is a primary listing of products with no commentary. Using Google's advanced search to filter to Polish-language sources only brings up business databases, which are not significant coverage (see WP:CORPTRIV).

Their debut game, Xposed, received reviews from PlayStation Country, a WordPress website, and a short review from the small site Video Chums. Their games have received multiple reviews by Game Slush Pile, a blog run by one person with unknown credentials. The announcement from Gaming Lyfe appears to be a republished press release or other unusable primary source. Celebrities Hacked received a short announcement from Push Square, a reliable source.

A version of the article with similar sourcing on Polish Wikipedia has been draftified. QuietCicada chirp 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Poland. QuietCicada chirp 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from failing WP:NCORP, most sources are either store pages, redirect pages of Kotaku or reviews. It totally fails in demonstrating any notability for it to have an article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Polish Wikipedia article only consisted of the table and without the additional written sentences. Sceeegt (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NCORP. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OceanHok. Fails WP:NCORP. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Tiny developer without wide recognition. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perky Little Things

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

There is no significant coverage from reliable sources for this game. Wombat Trap is a blog. Nintenderos, Nintendo Insider, and GoNintendo are unreliable sources reporting (mostly republishing) on the game's release. TheVideoGameLibrary and Kotaku entries are database sources that do not amount to significant coverage. The PlayAsia article is a primary press release. QuietCicada chirp 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator had been creating pages dedicated to video games with explicit content that did not demonstrate notability on their own. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Delete I have created many game articles and this was probably the only one where I had significant doubt. Still, I went for it at the end, perhaps with the thought that more sources could come in the future. But you're right, it's a lost cause so yes it can be deleted. Sceeegt (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This game doesn't have independent reliable sources for WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj

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

Lack of Detail writing UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and classify as stub. Article from what I can tell reaches notability criteria. Mockapedia (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which notability guideline you believe it meets @Mockapedia? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got a flurry of coverage, none of it substantial. Classic WP:TOOSOON article for a game that will probably be notable some years from now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4J Studios. I definitely considered keeping the article and classifying it as stub, but redirecting it to 4J Studios until the project has came far enough in development for WP:TOOSOON to be not be applicable is a better choice. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meet GNG --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour Civilization

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

This article is about an insignificant passing internet meme that, like many others, fails the general notability guidelines. Every source in use here is from a tabloid, borderline unreliable source (save for Rolling Stone) that talks about a brief internet trend rather the series itself. To go into specifics, Daily Dot and Dexerto are tabloids that should be used with caution and cannot demonstrate notability per WP:RSP, IMBD is user-generated content and is unreliable as a result per WP:IMBD, and Times Now is an undiscussed source, but due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it doesn't look good. And even if these sources were reliable, they are mostly just showcasing social media posts and don't actually hold any critical commentary. The show also fails WP:SUSTAINED, since every source was published in a short time frame, and nothing new has been written about the subject since as found by my WP:BEFORE searches. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well argued nom. There appears to be a dearth of WP:INDEPTH WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic of the article (and not a tangentially related meme [which also doesn't pass the bar of WP:N]). Only the Rolling Stone article meets all the criteria that are needed to contribute to WP:GNG, and we can't hang an article on one source. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draft, as the page creator, I agree that it doesn't reach notability guidelines. Mainly due to WP:SUSTAINED like you mentioned. The page itself has brought myself a overload of anxiety due to the fact I thought for sure it was going to get deleted at some point. The Rolling Stone article is the only thing that actually gives anything insightful on the topic, but Wikipedia needs at least two reliable sources that meet the criteria to be considered notable. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the best outcome would be. The subject itself is only ~60% of the way to being considered notable, though, It could be possible it gains another notable source at some point in the future. (no idea if that'd be bringing it back to draft or just appealing it when the time comes)

Please do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but as for now I'd appreciate if it was sent back to draft space or deleted. ^-^ Kaixvny (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, there is no real "criteria" for what makes something notable or not. The notability guidelines only calls for "multiple" reliable sources. So depending on the depth of the sources at hand (multiple pages, academic coverage, etc.), that number could be as low as two, but many people writing about pop-culture topics sourced to news websites generally try and aim for three in-depth sources (though, again, this is not a requirement). But this doesn't really meet that anyways. With that being said, I'm sorry if worrying about if the article would survive or not stressed you out. It's just part of the learning process on Wikipedia that I have faced myself, as have many others. It takes a while to learn and get used to, but in the end it works out. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I think i pulled the number two from HELP:AFD in "How to save the article.", I completely agree, and I'm glad this page is finally getting a outcome, it feels much more like breather than anything. As later on during its lifespan, I realized how much I stretched out the sources I had, and the fact it was a ticking time-bomb. Like I said, I still believe it it could eventually reach notability/better coverage in the future but not as of this moment, though could It possibly be shrunken down into a paragraph in List of Internet phenomenas? Honestly, it may still be too un-notable for that but I'm just thinking of other possible outcomes. Kaixvny (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about nominate this article myself, but forgot about it. I agree with everything NegativeMP1 said. My search on DDG and Google showed up no other usable source besides a questionable source Dexerto. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification works too, although I feel like all the coverage are just flash in the pan. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: This article was obviously written by fans of the series, for fans of the series. But I think the article should be drafted rather than deleted, providing a chance for it to be reworked into a more encyclopedic article.—theMainLogan (t•c) 17:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can say, if the only sources are the series itself and IMdB is allowed, then why isn't Battle for Dream Island?. All of these points have been brought up against the series, what's different about that? not to mention on youtube they are of very close subscriber count. Think about that before saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyllstru (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixvny, this isn't the place to discuss the inclusion of BFDI or any other article, but instead for Parkour Civilization, which should be done on Policies and Guidelines. I will note that nobody thus far (even the article's author) have advocated keep, so I don't know where you've got the idea that there is some hypocrisy (may I recommended reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ping, I am the page creator, replier is @Kyllstru! ^_^ Kaixvny (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It's my fault for my over-reliance on the WP:REPLYTOOL's pinging tool, without properly checking Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:SUSTAINED. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the source assessment table I have created.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/parkour-civilization-minecraft-movie-cinema-1235124169/		Per WP:ROLLINGSTONE.	There is significant coverage about the video itself, and not just talking about it being viral.	✔ Yes
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/viral-minecraft-film-parkour-civilization-gets-removed-from-letterboxd-fans-outraged-article-113949603	Even though WP:NEWSORGINDIA urges editors to exercise caution, I don't see any reason to believe this is sponsored. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. These issues do not apply to this article.	WP:NEWSORG per Times Now - no reason to believe a reputable news organization would be unreliable when it comes to reporting on a mostly Western cultural phenomenon.	Despite intermingled with quotes from Twitter, analysis of the plot and its significance is plain significant coverage: hustling culture, societal injustice, and income disparity.	✔ Yes
https://www.dailydot.com/memes/parkour-civilization-meme/		~ I've gone and read the closing comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#RFC (The Daily Dot). The main arguments against The Daily Dot's reliability has been on clickbait, [fusing] opinion with factual reporting, its political coverage, which do not apply much to this article, and there is the source is probably reliable for mundane reporting on internet culture. On reading the article I do not find too much bias in the reporting, so this is probably reliable.	~ Hard to salvage, but the sentences from the tale of an oppressed individual and The dramatic tone should be addressing the video directly and in detail as required in WP:SIGCOV.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall I believe these sources are enough in establishing notability per WP:GNG, and verifiable enough we can write an article on it. WP:NSUSTAINED appears to primarily talk about people and events, and for articles in other topics in general, no explicit words are given that sustained coverage is a requirement, but consideration should still be applied per context. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide very surface-level commentary on the show. The only third-party fact in the article (that is, not view count, voice actors, release medium, etc) is the fact that it inspired the meme "NO ONE chooses to jump for the beef". Any further coverage seems unlikely since the meme has already in its deathbed, unlike Skibidi Toilet or TADC. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) edited for typo 11:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article were you referring to? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The fact that there is a dearth of third-party content in the article creates WP:NPOV concerns, leading to WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations: Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The article as it currently stands is not a permanent stub and works fine as a standalone article to me. I'm not sure what you mean by third-party content though. The article is about the video series so it would make sense to talk about the video series? It is unclear to me where the NPOV issues are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I second Ca's comments. This isn't enough and what there is is basically flash-in-the-plan. And I would definitely say SUSTAINED should be taken into account regardless of it being a "requirement" or not. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't told me which sources fail significant coverage and why. The articles I have listed do, in my opinion, [address] the topic directly and in detail. I'm not sure what you mean by taking SUSTAINED into account. I've read sustained multiple times and I am unsure how that can be applied to a deletion discussion. If this passes GNG, then it is presumed notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't pass GNG. You're basically working with one and a half sources, and I'm personally referring to the Times Now article (not sure what Ca is referring to). What is there is very surface level, and it's still mostly just rehashing social media comments. It's the type of source that would be thrown out in most deletion discussions. And the Daily Dot should be disqualified to establish notability due to its faultiness as a source. If another source or two came out then it'd be fine, but right now it's too soon. And applying SUSTAINED to a deletion discussion is very simple: maybe it's a bad sign for whether or not something is actually notable if all of the coverage that exists for a subject was published in the span of a few days, and then never again. λ NegativeMP1 16:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why Daily Dot should not be completely disqualified, and I'd like to hear more reasoning than just affirming its faultiness as a source.

As for Times Now, I'm really not sure what you mean by surface level when the third and fourth paragraph addresses the film directly and in detail. I do agree that the way it is written sounds AI-y and I am less enthusiastic about that.

On the whole, I still believe this passes GNG, even if just on the border line. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is marked by WP:RSP as there being absolutely no consensus regarding its reliability in general, then I do not think it should be used to establish notability in a case like this and even your own source assessment table marks it as "partial". And if a source sounds machine-generated, why are you arguing for its usage? And both paragraphs you highlight are literally just plot summary as well as a few dashes of what fans think of the series. There is no actual critical commentary from what the article author themselves thinks beyond "this exists".

And to solidify this further, this article was written by an author who has worked with Sportskeeda, which is an unreliable content farm and this article honestly reminds me of something that would come from Sportskeeda based on how its written (which, as you've said, could very well have been done by AI). So again, I will repeat, this weirdly-worded social media post rehashing page does not contribute to the subjects notability. Take into account the actual contents of these sources. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus does not mean consensus against. It just means that additional considerations apply. And in this case I don't think the additional considerations pose too much concern on how it can be used to establish notability.

That said, even though I believe this passes GNG, I'm not opposed to a closure with WP:TOOSOON. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do agree with 0xDeadbeef's comments. Bunnypranav (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments from 0xDeadbeef and the demonstrable impact of this beyond the vein of a "passing internet fad" Claire 26 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence of there being a "demonstrable impact" when the sourcing all happened in the same time frame and is weak enough as is? λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: The source assessment table is a fancy way to make a topic look superficially notable, but one of the telltale signs of a GNG fail is the publication dates of all of the key sources being clustered together within the same single burst of news coverage: in this case October 2, 2024; October 4, 2024; and October 5, 2024. As such, this topic fails WP:SUSTAINED at the present moment. Left guide (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Left guide, it fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This article passes WP:GNG (barely, but still). I will use the WP:CRYSTAL argument to dispute WP:SUSTAINED - the nature of this genre is unpredictable so there's no telling what can happen in the near future. It's too soon to say that there's no sustained coverage. I think we should definitely keep the article for now. DesiMoore (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complete misunderstanding of what CRYSTAL actually is. How does CRYSTAL apply here at all? What CRYSTAL is is a policy against trying to predict future information or making articles on future events, and it does not argue against SUSTAINED. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects