Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

viewtalkeditchanges

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

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

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

Contents

September 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

World War II: Heroes of Valor[edit]

World War II: Heroes of Valor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "World War II: Heroes of Valor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

August 29 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Quest for Al-Qa'eda[edit]

Quest for Al-Qa'eda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Quest for Al-Qa'eda" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unremarkable video game. No claims to significance. Google research shows that source reliability is questionable.

Even if they are taken as reliable, reviews show it as an "exploitation" game and really bad. Though I know the game being bad doesn't justify its deletion. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Jesse Petrilla: Although I disagree with the nominator that it makes no claim to significance, it is definitely a very small claim at that. There's a Wired article ([1]) that talks about how many downloads it got quickly, and there's a passing mention in The Escapist ([2]), which are both reliable and notable sources, but there's nothing really here that establishes notability for it and it's not the full subject of either article. A couple of other situational sources that are now dead-linked, but it's the focus of none of the articles. I think this could be merged with Jesse Petrilla as well. Also, Quest for Saddam should be added to this nomination as well because it is a similar game and has a similar set of sources. Nomader (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Found another CNN mention ([3]), but again, just in passing. Still keeping my delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Save: Mr. Guye, just because you think a game is bad or not very remarkable, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Keep in mind this was over 13 years ago, hence why most of the links are dead. It was featured on MSNBC, in multiple magazines, etc, and was downloaded by millions worldwide. The game may not have been great, but it was fun and deserves its spot on Wiki IMO. To merge it with Jesse Petrilla would not make much sense. Martel10732 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Martel! Per our verifiability and notability guidelines, our personal feelings don't matter: it's important to find sources that say the article is important, not what we personally think about it. I think it would be a great Wiki article as well, but unfortunately, we don't have many sources for it outside of passing mentions like I brought up above. Do you have the link to the MSNBC or do you know which magazines it was featured in? If you do know them, we can add them to the article so we can keep it split out. Nomader (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Nomander, I can't find the link to the old MSNBC article, but there is an online video of one of the MSNBC interviews about it on YouTube ([4]), also, here is a passing mention of it in an Orange County Register article about another game: ([5]) Martel10732 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks: that helps a lot. I really wish there was something more substantive than a cable news interview... this whole thing is really on the cusp. I still think it'd be better serviced in a section in the Jesse Petrilla page instead of being split out into a stub, but let me search tonight and see if I can find anything else. Nomader (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In trying to find some old articles, I'm just finding a bunch of broken links. After 13 years there isn't much left. If it is decided to be deleted, I recommend merging it with the Quest for Saddam page and making it a section of that rather than Jesse Petrilla since it is the predecessor to Quest for Saddam. Martel10732 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have those links? If they're from reliable sources, we can use the internet archive [archive.org] to try and see what they were when they first came out. Nomader (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

HoboHut Network[edit]

HoboHut Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "HoboHut Network" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Only google hits are first-party sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming you want sources? What do you mean by "Only google hits are first-party" Please explain .. Hazgrid (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, why would a reliable news outlet report on another outlet that reports on the same thing as they do? Hazgrid (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would a news outlet quote what another news outlet stated, saying that they both agree? Who knows, answer that yourself. We're not here to discuss journalism practices. That question has nothing to do with this AfD. @Other Reviewing Admin, its obvious Hazgrid doesn't understand Wikipedia's notability requirement. Take this into account when reviewing this case. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
haha @Hazgrid, you misinterpreted the quotation mark. To merit a wikipedia entry, a company will need coverage from news outlets that are reliable and notable. For it takes notability for an organization to merit a Wikipedia entry and for news outlets are organizations, we know that news outlets that have their own Wikipedia entry are reliable and notable. Therefore, get coverage on news outlets that have Wikipedia entries. If you get coverage from a news outlet that don't have its own Wikipedia entry, the outlet's notability would be up for dispute (unless you're a seasoned editor and know what you're doing, but you're not) and if its viewed that the coverage was on unreliable news outlets, the page can get deleted. Get it now? CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Next time, use Article for Creation [6] instead of publishing straight from your sandbox. AfC was created to help new Wikipedians out.CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as searches obviously found no third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Alts
Former name:(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "HoboHut Films" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Founder:(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Harry Hughes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Countryr:(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "HoboHut, Australia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
  • Delete for failing WP:ORG. The article itself tells us it was founded in a backyard in 2013, uses only Facebook to promote itself, and has only 3 employees. While the founder can be congratulated for his efforts, until his project gets actual coverage in reliable sources, it is simply TOO SOON for an article on Wikipedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquiris Game Studio[edit]

Aquiris Game Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Aquiris Game Studio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tried searching using the WP:VG reliable and situational custom Google searches, plus a general Google search. The company certainly exists and is listed by BloombergBusiness, but coverage is limited to primary sources (especially press releases), unreliable sources like forums and user-submitted game databases, and trivial mentions as a developer of similarly non-notable games. Woodroar (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - while this is written fairly nicely and neutrally (hence the weak), the sourcing needed to establish notability just doesn't seem to be there, as stated above. The sources to be found are promotional or too closely related to the subject. I even browsed through some Google Brazil search results to no avail.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm actually leaning more towards delete now, because it appears the editor who started the article may have a conflict of interest. A company shouldn't have an article until it can meet the notability requirements, and that shouldn't be affected by outside forces.Godsy(TALKCONT) 12:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weaker Delete In contrast with the nominator, the studio has in fact made notable games, namely Horizon Chase. This, though is in contrast with the lack of significant coverage of the studio itself. Coverage such as this and a large variety of mentions in coverage of Horizon Chase helps, but it does not establish GNG passing notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak but delete for now as this may have potential and may get better coverage later but my searches found nothing particularly good now with this, this and this being the best results. At best, I'd say draft 7 userfy for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

August 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Disney Magical Dance[edit]

Disney Magical Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Disney Magical Dance" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

My searches simply found nothing to suggest improvement aside from this, for this sparsely edited article from August 2011 by a now blocked user. However, considering it had Japanese connections, I'm not sure if there's better Japanese coverage. There's also no target for moving elsewhere. Notifying tagger Sjones23. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tate Multimedia[edit]

Tate Multimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Tate Multimedia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Recreated article, deleted few months ago through PROD. Concern remains the same: "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Setting aside the dubious notability of their games, the company has no notability itself - no dedicated, reliable sources focus on it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Doesn't inherit notability from its children. Apart from the NWR interview, it had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd entertain a redirect, but it's not clear whether it should go to one of its games or somewhere else. A navbox for the dev would be more functional than this article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline, esp. Polish) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 02:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tobin Buttram[edit]

Tobin Buttram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Tobin Buttram" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability with the best results here (not much help aside from some journals) and there's no target for moving elsewhere and not to mention this has stayed since February 2005 with no future signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

August 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Soul Survivor (video game)[edit]

Soul Survivor (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Soul Survivor (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No evidence of notability. Although I cannot remember the state of the article at the time of the second AfD, and cannot see it as I am not an administrator, there is every indication that this is substantially the same. Launchballer 15:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This wiki should remain a draft --Sykess (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

August 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Star Citizen. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Star Citizen ships[edit]

List of Star Citizen ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "List of Star Citizen ships" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

A list of spaceships in a yet-unreleased game. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK shoy (reactions) 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • support there's no point in having this as a separate page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. While there is secondary source coverage of the ships, there's no reason why they can't be adequately explained in the original article and split out summary style if necessary. Please consider boldly performing easy redirects yourself before coming to AfD. – czar 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that there is any secondary source coverage, and I believed a redirect would be controversial. shoy (reactions) 13:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are rarely controversial on unsourced, new articles. Search the video game reliable sources custom Google search for star citizen ships for plenty of dedicated hits on individual ships. Still doesn't justify a separate article, though. – czar 16:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Alex De Rakoff[edit]

Alex De Rakoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Alex De Rakoff" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Delete: as non-notable writer (also non-notable actor). Quis separabit? 18:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rustic (Game)[edit]

Rustic (Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Rustic (Game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unreleased video game, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Way too soon. I searched, but found no usable sources, nor any indication that such sources exist yet. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, it seems as though this might be too soon for an article. Anarchyte 10:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, I'm not finding any coverage from reliable sources here. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 03:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nova Wing: 3031[edit]

Nova Wing: 3031 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Nova Wing: 3031" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Game lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 22:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, no coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Just being on the iTunes store does not guarantee notability, and there was not significant coverage from any notability-proving sources. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Teazle (video game)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and there are no easily verifiable print citations. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. (I went to repurpose as an article about the developer, but I can't find sources on that either.) If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: Found these:
Probably not enough, though.--IDVtalk 09:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh hey, just noticed that the Aftonbladet review is of the game's sequel.--IDVtalk 09:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 22 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Perfect Aces: Heads Up Poker[edit]

Perfect Aces: Heads Up Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Perfect Aces: Heads Up Poker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I came across this as an A7 nominee, but this doesn't really fall under A7 (since it's a game and not a web based one) nor does it fit in with any of the other criteria. I can't really find where this game has received enough coverage in independent or reliable sources to where it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Well, this game exists and some people have played it... that seems to be it. This doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find significant coverage from reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yoe Flash Wolves[edit]

Yoe Flash Wolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Yoe Flash Wolves" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Hasn't won any large events. Very low coverage of this group online; and even the mentions of them in the third party sources are glancing at best. The article is full of facebook references made by the team. The Undead Never Die (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

{Cough} - Rename to You Flash Wolves and change content so that it describes furries exposing their genitals to wild animals? - {Cough}
  • Delete - This looks barely notable at all to me, and I don't really see how the article could be much improved from here honestly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Article subject is almost notable, and could possibly be improved with the addition of more secondary references. Samuel Tarling (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Delete. Possible copyvio, and cut and pasted from source. Here author removed taggHafspajen (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The copied content used in the article was released under CC BY-SA.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:PROMO piece on non-notable video game players, sources are Facebook and gamers' magazines, no coverage in anything related to mainstream media, looks a little like a WP:Walled garden. Kraxler (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Kraxler. Me5000 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

List of video games considered the best[edit]

List of video games considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "List of video games considered the best" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

By combining reviews in this way the article is creating a new list, exactly as prohibited by WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is not an obvious or non-controversial combination; it is shaped by rules arbitrarily chosen for the purpose and therefore constitutes Original research. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

List of video game soundtracks considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would keep this, as this is somewhat standard on Wikipedia, unless you also want to remove List of video games notable for negative reception, List of films considered the worst, List of films considered the best, List of music considered the worst et cetera. Some of these are also of much lower quality - with less specific guidelines - than the two you are nominating. ~Mable (chat) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Those other articles appear to be quite different: they report reviews from notable organisations and ranked lists devised by notable organisations, whereas these two articles have created Wikipedia's own ranked list - and that is pure original research. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me any of those do. List of songs considered the best, does, though that list has a slew of its own problems (I suppose we could change the list of best games so it would no longer be considered WP:SYN like this, by the way, if that would be an improvement? At least there's no reason to delete). List of films considered the worst, for example, lists films based mainly on the amount of negative reception received, much like how these lists list games based on the amount of positive reception received. The main difference is the amount of prose explaining the choices. ~Mable (chat) 22:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list isn't saying "These are the best"; it's saying "These have made the most appearances on lists of the best". WP:SYNTH is for a completely different situation: it prohibits making statements that aren't derived from any source. Here, we're simply counting sources. "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H include this game on their list of the best, so this game's gotten eight 'best' reviews, and it's more commonly considered among the best than that other game, which only appears as 'best' on seven lists". Please read WP:CALC; routine mathematical calculations, including addition, are not a violation of this policy. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
But this is not the sort of calculation permitted by WP:CALC (which only includes trivial things like calculating someone's age) because the numbers computed depend on some arbitrary rules devised for he article. Furthermore the whole premise of the article, as explicitly stated in the lead, is to act as a review aggregator and produce a new and unique list based on its arbitrarily-produced counts, which is a synthesis because no individual source has produced a list ranked in the same order. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors have since worked on the article other than me - some very diligently - despite me not really agreeing with the new direction, per the talk page, and I didn't want to commit a WP:OWN violation by fighting them. A criteria of "found 6 sources saying the game is great" is not good because the number of sources is endless and this could be used to make a thousand+ entry list, which would defeat the whole point. This isn't supposed to be "list of well-regarded games," this should be a short and sweet list of truly toweringly lauded games. But, to be clear, I think the current version isn't deletable; it just needs a proviso in that I'd strongly suspect a "complete" spreadsheet of all these lists would include far more 6-20 entry games than are currently listed, so there's some bias in which of those were selected to show up. But oh well. SnowFire (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be pretty great if we could discuss any lists included in the article(s), so we could really have a finite list of sources to work with - new sources only being added after discussion. This doesn't really fall in the scope of the deletion, of course, but I would be open to help dig through some of the more questionable sources. ~Mable (chat) 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
SnowFire "Your" version of the article would not have been nominated by me for deletion. What it demonstrates well is that the only problem I have with the article as it has since become is that it produces new, synthesised, rankings of the games in the list, and resolving that issue could be addressed by editing rather than deletion. I think this is an important concern that needs to be discussed but this has probably become the wrong forum for it. (That is, I now think the article should be cleaned up or at least reverted back to an earlier form, rather than deleted.) RichardOSmith (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree in that producing a list ranked by number-of-lists has problems in elements of OR. I'd happily endorse if people want to restore a sorting by release date rather than number of lists.
Maplestrip, I have a Google spreadsheet with the original lists I compiled - happy to share it and put it in a common location. If that spreadsheet is kept up to date, it's possible we can restore this to a more "objective" list as far as these things go so that we can be sure that whatever threshold is set, games don't slip out unnoticed. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sharing the spreadsheet should probably be useful for future editors in general :) Is it up to date right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talkcontribs) 04:02, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)
Definitely not! It 'only' has the ~13 sources used originally (and was quite a bit of work for just those), while the article is now using 40+ lists. Anyway, created a new account and shared it (with EDIT permissions to all, so you might want to make a personal backup if you make some changes in case somebody comes along later and erases your work or some such): https://goo .gl/a1R9Lk (separated due to link filter)
There's also a conversion of places to weights in the "adjusted" section. I'm not super-tied to what I used, so something like "appears in top 100 = 1, doesn't = 0" would be fine too since that's what the current article used, but up to you. (I'd used top 5 = 5 points, 6-15 = 4 points, 16-25 = 3 points, 26-100 = 2 points.) SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd definitely support ranking by date rather than number of sources. I don't think lowering the number of sources is a good idea though, as a large pool of lists minimizes bias and increases the sense of a real consensus. Wouldn't it be better to raise the number of required sources instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdesco (talkcontribs) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
More sources are good, yes, but it's important to keep the overall list "balanced." For example, the EGM top 200 list excluded computer games entirely, while the likes of PC Gamer's lists exclude console games entirely. It's *extremely* easy to introduce bias by adding a bunch of lists that exclusively cover a single era / platform / genre, or even just favor one. This is even ignoring the known geographical bias towards the English-language media! This would cause the results to be more about which lists were picked. Additionally some publications just spam out new top 100 lists every year, which is in some ways great (more data!), but it doesn't necessarily mean that their opinions should count 5x as much as a publication which only publishes a list once every 5 years. When I set up my canonical list of sources, I tried to spread as widely as possible - a variety of publishers, a variety of dates created, and balance out PC-exclusive & console-exclusive lists. Now, we can go ahead and take in more sources, but then if you want to get really technical about it you have to get into "weighting" the lists so that IGN 2006, IGN Readers 2006, IGN 2007, IGN Readers 2007, IGN 2008, IGN 2009, etc. don't cause IGN's editors to have undue relevance. Or make sure that we don't have all the PC games get buried beneath console lists, or 80s games get buried beneath more recent lists (something already mentioned in the methodology of the article, actually). SnowFire (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it is generally fair and comparative to List of films considered the best. I do not see an issue with saying "We are sorting this based on how many times the title appeared in specific publications' Top 100/Top 25 lists", since that is not a violation of WP:SYNTH or basic math, as long as we have a well-defined list of what sources we're going to use for that. (That it to avoid RandomVideoGameFan's personal Top 100 list that fails all RS becoming a source.) And the MetaCritic and GameRanking tables are good reasonable snapshots to avoid bias (letting however those aggregators handle the bias on their end) --MASEM (t) 16:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but how about only giving credit for games placing in the top 10/20 of a list? Any old game can place 99th on five different lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.114.84 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities. Thanks to Ferret for the detailed analysis of sources, that was most helpful to the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

GTANet.com[edit]

GTANet.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "GTANet.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The article is filled with sources, but they're all either unreliable, trivial, or primary (mostly reblogged press releases). Many don't even mention GTAN or the individual fansites, and those that do simply give them credit for the tip. There is no significant coverage of the network itself in reliable, third-party sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep:Complicated = this page's notability. I was exploring and gathering rules for notability establishment for forums from many wikipedia's guidelines as this page's notability might be in question. So here we go. Important thing to notice: we are talking about internet forum. Forums, by definition, are rarely notable other than to their members. But, and this is a big but, exception proves the rule. And GTANet is an exception. Wikipedia has no clear rule on how to establish forum's notability because forum is so much different media than all other websites.

Forum is community of members, their message board. How to describe an internet forum? It is message board whose formatting is well known: you have registration options, pm option, posting option and that's basically it. So every forum is the same thing other discussion? This assumption is something that drags every discussion about forum in the way of deleting them. Let's take one step backwards. We are not talking about weather gtaforum is good or bad, you may have never heard for it, you may not know what it is about, but understanding that this page has enough notable sources is essential. Wikipedia is very unclear on the subject of forum notability, so I needed to go through various rules to establish the following. First don't assume forum is just a website. Look at forum this way: forum is organization. This organization's residents are called members. This organization's products are called threads, topics, mods, showcases. This is no ordinary organization however. It does have many basic standards as every organization has, but the difference with this one is that we can't separate it from its products. This organization and its products are very compact because they rely on each other - without one, the other wouldn't exist. That's why they are so inseparable. This is what makes internet forum so different. Taking away content of GTAnet from it is like taking all the words from a book.

The evidence that the organization or its product has attracted the notice proves the notability. This organization and its products both were subject of sources and information on the importance of the subject. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are some of the examples.

Content of this subject caused both political and cultural impact. This forum was found relevant enough to be taken down for leaks, it is considered as relevant gta news website for illustrious gaming informers, it is a place which invented modding tools praised both by rockstar and gaming informers, modding section's attention from media is exceptional, if this site was relevant enough to cause media coverage noise among both informers and gta fans with a prank, than there is no way it fails WP:N. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • WP doesn't need rules for forums—it has the general notability guideline. Let's take a step back. The article has already been refbombed and what's most important is this: what sources discuss the site/forum itself in depth? (Not a product of fans via the site, but the site itself.) And how is the site distinguished from general Grand Theft Auto fandom such that it wouldn't be adequate to include the aforementioned refs in a "fandom" section of the series article? – czar 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Barring positive answers to the above, I suggest repurposing to Grand Theft Auto fandom (or Grand Theft Auto mod community), slaying all non-secondary sources, and revisiting in the future. CCCD's sources appear to be much more about fan response to GTA than specifically about modding. If the fan activity doesn't fit into a coherent narrative about things fans coalesce around, those citations should be removed as trivia. In essence, the article should be a summary style expansion of a fandom section within the series article. – czar 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
70 references aren't real number. Out of them 70 there are around 20 that are wp:gng while others should be removed or kept just for statistics (alexa). I understand the problem about this site and notability. There are little sources that discuss site itself. However there are some. They are not exceptionally in depth, but should serve enough for wp:n establishment. This one says as I quote: GTAForums, a popular site for mod makers of the game. The visitors were often anonymous, logging on under assumed names and rarely, if ever, meeting in person... The modding community felt like a bunch of friends trying to solve a mystery. Then, there are articles (by qj and n4g) regarding the takeover of gtaforum by EA, first source on this, by whatifgaming is however not acquirable by wayback. This one can be counted as well as this one. Their main subject may not be giving info on gtanet, but they included enough info not to be treated as trivial. This one is sole covering and giving attention to gtanet and this one gives a lot of in depth to its modding section even though not being subject.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried to destroy as much primary or trivial references I could to make it readable. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, but here's my complete run down of the sources as they are in this revision.
  1. Trivial mention that the site admin was invited to the event. No indepth coverage of the site except for the last section, which was written by the admin himself.
  2. No coverage of the site itself, only a blurp that "GTAForums" posted some details from a Q&A. This source is about GTA V, not the site.
  3. No direct coverage of the site beyond mentioning that specific users and "users" in general from the forum had done things.
  4. Content is about GTA V, GTA Forums mentioned only as the source of the comparison images.
  5. Best source so far, but the content of the source is primarily about bugs in GTA V, GTA Forums is simply a place people were posting about them.
  6. Trivial mention that users of the site built a good guess in a single sentence. Rest of article focuses on GTA V content.
  7. Same as above. Article is about GTA V map content, with a trivial mention that users of the forums made their own map.
  8. Trivial mention that a user of the forum noticed which actor was listed in IMDB for GTA V....
  9. Zero discussion of GTAForums beyond trivial mention as a source. Article is about GTA V
  10. Again, trivial mention of GTAForums users as source for leaks.
  11. Article is about a hoax done by forum user theNGclan, with only a trivial mention of which forums (GTA Forums)
  12. Trivial mention that forum members of GTAForums have made gifs... followed by gifs.
  13. Source 7 repeated.
  14. Source 12 repeated.
  15. Alexa, doesn't help WP:N
  16. Small foot note stating that the content discussed is hosted at GTAForums. No direct discussion of GTAForums.
  17. Extremely trivial mention of GTAForums, no discussion of site beyond a "shout out"
  18. Unreliable source, this is just GTAForums' "social group" on Rockstars "clan" system.
  19. Somewhat better source that focuses on a Google Map created for GTA4 by gta4.net. This is the first source that mentions GTANet.com at all. All previous sources have been GTAForums only.
  20. No mention of GTANet or any related sites at all, nor any link to them.
  21. Unreliable source, download page for a mod. Only mention of GTAForums is a link to a thread.
  22. Sources is about a specific mod, only mention of GTAForums is in regards to the mod author posting there.
  23. Same mod as sources 20 and 21. No mention of GTAForums other than that the author is a member.
  24. No discussion of GTAForums, other than a trivial mention as the source of a quote.
  25. Source 19 repeated.
  26. Source 24 repeated.
  27. Currently a deadlink so cannot comment. Venturebeat seems to be having tech difficulties.
  28. Discussion of various mods with no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
  29. Game developer's blog, mentioning the GTA4 map created by gta4.net. Discussion is about the map, not the site, which is simply listed as "Via GTANet.com"
  30. Another map with a youtube video, no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
  31. Bad source. Google Books was searched for "gtamodding", presumably one of the sub-sites of GTANet.com. However it found "GTA Modding" in the title of a reference to a Polish GTA site.
  32. Article has a few quotes from Illspirit, admin for gtagarage.com, but is about Hot Coffee mod, not Gtagarage.com or related sites.
  33. Bad source. Link to a google book with "gtanet.com" as the search key, but Google replies "0 results found"
  34. Bad source, another google book with GTAForums as the search key, but it appears to be failing to match anything in the article, perhaps due to some sort of translation issue.
  35. Primary source to gtagarage.com
  36. Repeat coverage of GTA4.com's Google Maps version of GTA4. No coverage of site, coverage is about map.
  37. No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
  38. No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
  39. Appears to be an unreliable source, reporting a GTANet.com April Fool's Day hoax claiming that EA bought the site.
  40. Reliable source covering the same April Fool's Day hoax. At least this is actually about the site somewhat, but notability by itself it is not.
  41. n4g.com is not a reliable source, I believe, as it's a news aggregater. This is just a repost of the next source.
  42. Can't recall if Qj.net is reliable, but this is an update to the April Fool's Day hoax and trivial.
  43. Extremely short blurb about a mod, only mention of GTAForums/GTANet.com is to source it.
  44. No discussion of the site beyond noting that a member had scanned an early magazine release.
  45. Another article about Hot Coffee Mod. Trivial mentions to gtagarage.com, where the mod had been released.
  46. The site went down shortly after leaking that a new trailer for GTA would be released soon. No information on cause. Trivial.
  47. Coverage of a GTA 3 mod. Only mention of sites in question is as a link on where to get it.
I don't see anything here that helps with WP:N. This is after the main editor involved in the article cleaned out a large number of primary/trivial sources. I think if I removed all the sources I consider at the very best "trivial", if not outright unrelated, the article might have 3 surviving sources, and they'd still be trivial ones. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Additional thought/note in regards to CZAR's comments about a fandom article, having checked through many of these sources, I do not believe they would support a fandom article either. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
11, 19, 31, 34, 36, 45, 46, these are interpreted especially wrong. First if you want to use google news search on this topic then delete .com of gtaforums and gtanet and you'll see more results. It doesn't mean that the article is trivial just because it's primary subject isn't gtanet or gtaforum. Their content counts as well especially where highlighted. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This was not a Google search I did. I checked the references you put in the article, as they currently are, and that was the results of clicking them. I'm sorry you disagree with my interpretations, but it's all trivial. There's no in depth coverage of the site itself, just various coverage of things people did or the barest mention of "Via GTANet". The simple fact of the matter is that most fan sites aren't notable, and that's the case here. In addition, there's just so much OR synthesis here. One of the best examples is Many reputable gaming news websites, as well as Rockstar, acknowledged the quality of fan made material on GTANet, with Digital Trends describing it as dedicated. ... None of the five sources for this sentence directly discuss the "quality" of the fan made material. In particular, the "quote" for Digital Trends is misleading. Digital Trends does not call the quality of the material "dedicated", it simply says "A dedicated group of fans" made the map. At best, these sources might lead to notability of the particular artists and teams making these mods (There's not enough for that though). GTANet doesn't inherent notability from them though. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per ferret's very well-done analysis of each reference. The site is popular, but popularity != notability. The coverage of individual mods which are credited/linked to GTANet is not in-depth coverage enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite being a fairly large article, it doesn't say anything informational or otherwise noteworthy, let alone that being backed up by a valid, objective, well-established source. And as was said before, popularity does not mean notability. --Soetermans. T / C 09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, not bangvoting myself, since I asked another user (User:czar in this case) to the AfD-discussion, but will say that I think sufficient WP:SOURCES exist to write a decent Draft:Grand Theft Auto modding article, rescuing the WP:NOTEWORTHY material about GtaForums and GtaGarage (which are two of the sister-sites within the GtaNet group-slash-web-ring-kinda), and their role in Hot Coffee and later mods. This approach would satisfy wiki-honor about the removal of GTANet.com as being WP:NotJustYet, but still simultaneously satisfy WP:PRESERVE for the material therein which *is* reliably-sourced, either in the existing article or on the talkpage. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The new article's live at Grand Theft Auto modding. I gave the creator some advice on my talk page. Redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities as a valid search term for that section. (And redirects are cheap—there's no need to delete the edit history.) – czar 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What Gtanet article lacks is sources that explore it in-depth. I managed to find a lot of references, however they mostly discuss content found there. I was not aware that main page doesn't inherit notability of content. Therefore, gtanet would need in-depth coverage to be stand alone article. I will change my vote to Redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities.Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Per WP:NOTTOOHARSH  · Salvidrim! ·  14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Chief Pat (Youtuber)[edit]

Chief Pat (Youtuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Chief Pat (Youtuber)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I am not sure either source is reliable for notability, and I do not think we use Youtube subscriber counts as evidence. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete -Found nothing in reliable sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, only gamer forums. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89(T·C) 02:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Underlight[edit]

Underlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Underlight" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The single third-party source gives no indication of being reliable, as discussed previously by WPVG. Another source mentioned on the Talk page is specifically unreliable, again per WPVG. The WPVG custom Google search for both reliable and situational sources returns zero results. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator given additional sources below. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I was just going to confirm that the searches had nothing, but... they did have stuff? Review from 1up.com counts, though the GameZone stuff is just press releases. It's also in this Massively visual history of MMORPGs (p. 8). This is a game from the 90s, so we have to go to print sources, but the best I could do with a quick search was an episode of Computer Chronicles. It's possible that there's more out there but I found nothing special in LexisNexis, Factiva, Newspaper Archive. I'd prefer to see this merged if anyone has any good ideas. Perhaps something to do with Lyra's Reclamation, which possibly received more coverage? – czar 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That's weird. I just tried the searches again and, like you said, found plenty of results. Nothing that I would consider great except for that single 1Up review. You're right that there may be print sources out there, and I'd gladly !vote to keep if anyone can find them. Woodroar (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. We have reviews from 1UP.com (above), Computer Gaming World (below), and I'd include Khabal (below), though WP:VG/RS is checking on its reliability. There is an interview with Gamespy (below) and a self-published dev entry in RPGPlanet (owned by IGN) for the development section. All the other links are unreliable, mostly personal blogs. I'd feel more comfortable if one or two more review sources were uncovered, but the aforementioned sources (in addition to the Massively and perhaps Computer Chronicles linked above) should be just enough to eke out a tiny article on the subject. (It was notable enough to be covered in multiple reliable and independent sources.) – czar 06:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Further Details.

Hello,

I am working with the current team who is operating the classic MMORPG Underlight. I have noticed that you have placed the page about our game on the deletion log. Could you please advise us as to what further details you need, or what needs to be clarified about this page to not remove it. I have been involved in the community of this game since early 1998, I and very many other players of this game past and present would be very disappointed that the history of the game be removed from Wikipedia. You can contact me and I would be happy to address any concerns you have. Thank you.

Some references you may have missed, that have been posted to our forums, like the original websites archived at archive.org:

I'm going to stop here, there are many many more separate pages where people had provided details about this games existence. If the page needs to have some information removed, or additional citations made, I can work on that. I am very new to Wikipedia and editing, so please be patient with me. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoiUnderlight (talkcontribs) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page about our general sourcing requirements. The above sources all appear to be primary and/or unreliable/self-published sources and aren't of much value to us. Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is an external reference, Computer Gaming World (August 2002), I can mail you the magazine if you want.

KoiUnderlight (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Some additional historical reviews from other review sites that were archived for your consideration:

KoiUnderlight (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@KoiUnderlight, do you know of any other reviews in major publications (esp. magazines)? Even if you don't have copies, it would help us to know where to look. Sites we consider reliable are listed here, if you're curious. – czar 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Czar, I have yet to find a copy of the article, but I will be sure to post it when I do, but the game did receive a 2-page review in PC Gamer in late 1998 or 1999. One final note, since Underlight was first shut down by Lyra Studios LLC at the end of 2006, the players have continued to work towards it's preservation. No version of Underlight since the original Lyra Studios LLC version has ever charged any money to play. The game has been run on 100% volunteer effort and out of pocket expenses, that includes myself. Underlight was the only MMORPG that I can recall where playing an in-character persona was a requirement of playing at all times. To my knowledge, Underlight was the first MMORPG ever to have live-action FPS style combat in a 3D environment (no auto-attack exchange of numbers back and forth, real aiming & dodging). This is a very notable achievement in MMORPG history and should not be deleted just because it was obscure. Thank you for your consideration, please do not destroy an important part of MMORPG history. KoiUnderlight (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If you know around when the magazine was published, we could help look for it. Wikipedia only reports what it can verify. Anything that is unsourced in the article will end up removed unless a reliable source backs it up. We also don't host claims of original research—only claims that are backed up by reliable, secondary sources. – czar 06:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Czar. If we could find copies of PC Gamer between 1998-1999, I'm pretty certian in was in that span. One of the links I provided above was from GameSpy (interview May 2000) which does appear on WP:VG/RS as a reputable source. One other thing I should mention regarding Reclamation that you referred to above. Reclamation was planned to be the sequel to Underlight. If there were any magazines that spoke about it then it must have been from an interview with someone at Lyra Studios when they had begun development. Reclamation never made it to alpha testing, only concept art was ever released. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned at my Talk page, Computer Gaming World is short but the type of source we're looking for. I feel that finding that issue of PC Gamer would satisfy the notability requirements, though we'd want to rewrite the article around the available sources at that time. I'll gladly change my !vote to keep if that happens. Woodroar (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Woodroar, I just found another article mention on another site that is on the list here, GameSpot in this case: https://web.archive.org/web/19980423224847/http://gamespot.com/features/10multi/und.html I am still looking for more mentions, but finding old archived stuff from the 90's is amazingly difficult. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Czar There is actual gameplay circa July '98 Computer Chronicles starting at the 20:00 mark of the video, featuring Brian Jamison, the producer of Underlight. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I had linked the video in my original post – czar 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I know this isn't an approved source, but just one more link regarding underlight when it was first run on Mplayer network. https://web.archive.org/web/19990504214838/http://www1.mplayer.com/news/980513/underlight.html - KoiUnderlight (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you be able to get a larger or higher-resolution scan of the Computer Gaming World source? We don't need the entire magazine, just the relevant parts about Underlight. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Woodroar I was able to locate the PDF scan of this entire magazine on CGW Museum here: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_217.pdf Page 92 of the PDF, Page number 80 in the magazine. Thanks for your help. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Another reference from the Meridian 59 article: http://www.skotos.net/about/pr/03112003.html - KoiUnderlight (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Should be included simply for history. Not sure why you'd want to "Delete" it. At time of it's release, how many MMORPGS were there? Well, 1 big one (Ultima Online) Mplayer was also big - and promise of failed game (10six) -- well before EverQuest, etc. The reasons to include is because of it being reviewed in print - and online. And was one of very few MMORPGS at the time. Oogles (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned earlier that it also had a number of unique features that were firsts for the MMORPG genre such as live real-time FPS style combat and an enforced roleplay (in-character at all times) rules. Beyond that with the exception of some basic monsters, there were no NPCs, every other character and even the strongest of the monsters were played by real people. It also had a unique leveling system that required players to get quests written for them (no pre-scripted quests) by other more experienced players who had earned the title of teacher. This meant that every players experience was their own, no two people had the same experience when playing Underlight. The faction system was the first to incorporate physical in game structures that were unique to each individual faction, not just a title above your characters head to go along with the name. Also, it's server technology, the Lyra Destinations engine, could handle all of this live-action FPS combat with players using as low as 14.4kbps modem due to the compression algorithms used. From what I've been told it was also configured to form a cluster allowing for a single server instance to be handled by as many servers as needed with all players in a single world (like EVE Online). The technological achievements alone are noteworthy (albeit they won't be found in any game reviews, which focus on gameplay, user experience and the client itself). Many of these, but not all, were mentioned in the various reviews above, albeit most of those reviews were after newer games such as Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest had come out and made the game pale in comparison aesthetically. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Vastly different system requirements, too. Pentium 90 16MB Ram. https://web.archive.org/web/19990204013821/http://www.mplayer.com/rpg/games/underlight/ Is web archives of websites acceptable as sources? The reason why I mentioned 10six, is it was one at that time that was trying to make a FPS on-line MMORPG - failed. And while I wouldn't consider Underlight solely a FPS game, it certainly was an aspect of it. Other so-called games of the type (in-character required) were just glorified graphical MUD/MUSH/IRC interfaces, or web-based. Oogles (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In terms of improving the article, all of those claims should be attributed to vg reliable sources. (Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth.) Archival links are fine, but can only be used for uncontroversial, descriptive claims, not something superlative like it being the best or first to do something, etc. – czar 13:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And I certainly understand that, we aren't an investigatory platform to seek out sources of 'facts' that we want to find. But, for example, I'm sure I can find on-line reviews (at time of it's release) with the waybackmachine.

Just not sure if that's valid as a source, if the original is gone. I did an example above, on MPlayer.

In addition to a lot of other stuff that has been removed. I agree saying 'first' to do something is hard - but this is a talk page, not the article, I wouldn't put that in the article. But I think we can all agree the total number of MMORPGS at time of it's release was amazingly less than now. Oogles (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

August 19 (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. – czar 01:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Code of Tanks[edit]

Code of Tanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Code of Tanks" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No secondary sources, just the game's own website and a public wiki. Fails WP:NSOFT. McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. The article seems relevant and historically significant since the sources indicate there are a limited number of programming games of the like in the history of computing. There are comparable Wikipedia articles about similar games that have been up for a long time that are not challenged, including Mouse_Run, Robocode, and RobotWar. The secondary sources for these are public, web-based sources including topic-specific wikis, which together comprise a somewhat complete collection of items in that genre and how they are related. Also, based on having compared those articles, they all should probably be included if any of them are.
--Cotdev (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking arbitrarily at RobotWar, that article is sourced to articles in Computer Gaming World and BYTE magazine. These are the kinds of sources that the Code of Tanks requires, if it is to meet WP:GNG (showing that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Open wikis are not considered reliable sources per WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't really find anything for this other than the routine listings on gaming websites and the odd mention in a forum here and there. It doesn't seem to have garnered any coverage or reviews in reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia would require for notability. Just because something is one of the few examples of something does not automatically mean that it is notable. It can sometimes make it more likely that something will be notable, but it isn't a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neither of the WP:VG/RS custom google searches came up with anything (which isn't surprising considering the nature of the game). The main thing that comes up when I search for it in quotes on Google is this article and a number of Wiki sites that fail our verifiability guideline at WP:SPS per McGeddon's rationale above. Nomader (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated by others above. Nothing noteable about this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)JAaron95 Talk 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul[edit]

Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:CRYSTAL with no references and insufficient coverage for an upcoming game. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per AdrianGamer's sources. I'm pretty sure I've seen more out there as well, I assume that even his lengthy list is just a sampling. Please be mindful of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep while the article is badly written there are enough valid references to create a proper article that will remove any WP:CRYSTAL issues.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, searches revealed enough sources to establish notability (see AdrianGamer's vote above). Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Heli Attack 3[edit]

Heli Attack 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Heli Attack 3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (Gamezone hit was a repackaged press release and the other stuff was just listings and PR). JIG review is a paragraph long and the rest are unreliable sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree that notability hasn't been clearly established. The links in the articles right now seem to go to unreliable sources. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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 both. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

NEStimulator[edit]

NEStimulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Igor Todorovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "NEStimulator" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Igor Todorovski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

NES emulator, fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Google search for the name of software mostly returns copies of the Wikipedia article. The project's subversion repository has not been updated since the year 2007. [14] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also nominating article about Igor Todorovski, a "legendary" developer who apparently became "famous" for co-authoring this software. [15] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete both the article on the software and the developer. There's a complete absence of meaningful coverage. If by some miracle the article on the software survives, the one about the dev should be redirected. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit: CSD A7 may even apply to the article about Igor Todorovski. Anarchyte 12:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - these emulator article's rarely seem to have the coverage needed to meet the GNG. Delete the one sentence, zero sourced "article" about its creator, Igor. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 delete.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Goal Line Blitz[edit]

Goal Line Blitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Goal Line Blitz"news · books · scholar · imagesVGRS · WPVG Talk)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. In its current state, it is entirely unsourced and there are no reviews (or coverage at all) from reliable sources. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:GNG as lacking significant, independent, reliable coverage to suit WP:WAF, such as from WP:VG/RS. Looking at previous AfD, while delete arguments center on lack of notability, the keep arguments center around WP:POPULARITY, which is not lasting notability in WP terms. There are other minor arguments, but most are incompatible with notability. Their site list some press mentions. I don't have access to the magazine (I suspect it's one of those blurbs rather than a full review), GameFront page is 404 and there's no archive (being under "news.", I doubt it was a full review), while [16] is in fact unreliable per WP:VG/RS. Removing the WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT from the article would leave us with a stub as there are no reliable sources to use for expansion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a notable game, and did not receive enough coverage from reliable source. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FuGenX Technologies[edit]

FuGenX Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "FuGenX Technologies" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

insufficient evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for now as the best NY searches found so far was this. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Firearms (video game). (non-admin closure)JAaron95 Talk 03:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Firearms: Source[edit]

Firearms: Source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Firearms: Source" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some mentions: [17][18][19] – czar 19:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 delete. The one "keep" opinion does not address relevant guidelines and practices, or the arguments for deletion.  Sandstein  07:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Digimon World characters[edit]

List of Digimon World characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "List of Digimon World characters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This page consists exclusively of fancruft. It fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GNG. Fangusu (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- 100% unsourced in-universe fancruft. Reyk YO! 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep- Article in bad condition bad can be improved. Digimon franchise is notable. There are articles on list of characters of almost every important franchise including Pokemon.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge or Delete I thought about a merge to Digimon World#Plot but this series transcends 11 different video games. If someone wants to merge all the info into the different article's plot sections that I feel could be a good solution, if not then this should be kept and improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree with a WP:TNT rationale here. No objectections here for a future re-creation with a better sourced list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you have someone in mind for userfying? It doesn't look like there's anyone who's regularly maintained it, or volunteering to clean it up... Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TNT, though I wouldn't be opposed of someone recreating it someday if they wrote it professionally with sources. That recreation should contain about 0% of what this article is though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sanwa Denshi (video game)[edit]

Sanwa Denshi (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Sanwa Denshi (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This does not look like it will pass WP:ORG as this is more like a business to business brand and hardly anything else as I only heard of the joystick brands who it supply to. As I tried looking [20] and [21] this article does not say how they are notable, all it says that their products is arcade quality, their buttons is fitted on [x] brand joystick or that they are a leading brand but not how just like this article, so in other words, more like Wikipedia assisted notability. Donnie Park (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Current article is 100% OR, so removing unsourced content means removing the entire page. No comment on notability, as being a Japanese company makes it hard to tell if there are Japanese sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment Checking Japanese sources, it seems it does get decent coverage in the gaming press, especially at the major game shows, where it sets up a big booth: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. There's even a video report on their booth from Famitsu, the major gaming magazine in Japan: [28]. I am not that familiar with the Japanese gaming press, so I would like to hear from those who are. Michitaro (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rescue![edit]

Rescue! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Rescue!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Deleted a couple of days ago, re-created with two sources: the author's own website, and a paragraph in a review of a genre (so the source is not primarily about the subject). The article says "little print" was expended but it was "immensely popular" - no obvious citation is given for this assertion. The author of the article asserts that this is unambiguous evidence of meeting WP:GNG, I am not seeing it myself. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: The reference in question is certainly more than "a paragraph", and the game leads off the article. And what's the hurry here, do did read the check in note, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The two sources offered are WP:PRIMARY in one case and WP:UNRELIABLE in the other, the latter source having been published by game publisher with no clear reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
How can you possibly declare one of the UK's better known game reviewers as UNRELIABLE? Evans-Thirlwell has, literally, hundreds of articles about gaming published around the world in leading gaming magazines and even major newspapers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The question isn't whether this game publisher is well known or whether the author of the article has published elsewhere. The question is whether this particular source is a WP:Reliable source as we define the term. So far as I can tell, it is not. If you think I'm wrong, take the question to WP:RSN; if you get a consensus there that this is a reliable source, I will accept it. But I don't think that's what they'll decide. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This quite literally just came out of AfD and (at the very least) warranted a discussion before unilaterally overturning it. I asked for Maury's sources on the talk page and was told that the Kotaku section was "all this article really needs". I still haven't heard back on the German magazine citation, but I see no reason to buy that the Kotaku section (even in addition to whatever German mag is procured) constitutes significant coverage. This waste of time could have been avoided with just a little forward consideration. what's the hurry here—if there's no hurry, leave drafts in draftspace and we wouldn't be here? – czar 03:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have received word that the game is also on the cover of a MacFormat issue from 1994 (and I suspect the German reference is a reprint of this). I am tracking down that issue by emailing all the contemporary editors. The article consists of an entire column in the magazine which gave the game a rave review, a front-page mention (under the name "Star Trek", amusingly) along with the game itself on the CD.

But apparently we're now onto the part of the AfD where we invoke varied definitions of SIGCOV and start questioning everyone's GF. The best part is the attempt to turn the tables and blame me for this problem. What's, it's my fault you deleted this without even the slightest effort to contact any of the involved editors? Maybe you could have saved yourself all this precious time had you applied a little of that "forward consideration"?

No wonder less pig-headed editors than I are abandoning the project in droves.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Maury, your enthusiasm for it is not in doubt, but this is a game that has essentially left no trace. This is no Elite. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Burden's on you to present sources, Maury, especially if you're overturning a consensus. But you know that. The mudslinging is unnecessary. – czar 17:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating, now I'm a time waster and mudslinger. In any event, the magazine article was not a version of MacFormat as I thought, but a US magazine, and has been added. I am now awaiting the MacFormat article as well, but as that magazine does not have an archive (can you believe it?) I have tracked down someone that has a copy in their garage and is sending scans to me as soon as he can find it. That will be three significant mentions in different formats, at least two of then dead-tree which the wiki seems to value more highly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you share the scan of the Electronic Entertainment October 1994 citation? – czar 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless further sources arise, I'm not convinced what is currently present makes it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • More sources added Thanks to the help of another Wiki user, I have added a cite based on a lengthy (two pages printed) review from Inside Mac Games. That has been archived online, so feel free to read it. And in case anyone cares to check, yes, it's listed as an RS. The article now has three RS's, two of them online, so I can't wait to hear what the problem is now. Still waiting on the MacFormat too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I respect your right to your opinion but I have mine also and I'm not persuaded. Even if Inside Mac Games is considered reliable today, I'm don't believe that means it was reliable then. So far as I can tell, it was one guy publishing whatever he wanted. I'm also unsure what you consider to be those other two WP:RS. I note that your appeal at WP:RSN discussed above and archived here went nowhere. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not my opinion that IMG is considered RS, it's a fact. If you "don't believe" it should be RS, then take it to RSN and get consensus to remove it from the list. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point. It may indeed be a RS now. Who cares. The question is whether it was a RS only two years into its being, at a time when clearly it was a self-published compendium of user contributions from an AOL forum as described in our article at Inside Mac Games. I cannot imagine it could have qualified as an RS then. If you actually draw some keep !votes based on this source, then maybe I'll take it to RSN for an opinion but I doubt that's going to be necessary. I don't agree that your other sources are reliable, either. I think you're still at zero. Msnicki (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
IMG is RS until you get consensus otherwise on RSN. What you clearly and repeatedly state is your opinion and the product of your imagination is of no consequence, any more than mine is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not true. RSN always considers the context of how the source is to be used. By "the list", I assume you mean WP:VG/RS's list of generally reliable sources. The mag was added without discussion many years ago and there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability (most notably Kotaku). I'm genuinely surprised at your tone and read of policy throughout this thread (especially considering your complaint about rules earlier in this thread...) I've asked politely several times, so I'll make one final request for scans or photos of the offline/physical sources you've added. I assume good faith that you verified the direct source material yourself, but since we're at AfD, I'd like to verify the degree to which they constitute in-depth coverage, which I can't get from the small mentions alone. – czar 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"RSN always considers"
Then take it to RSN where it can be considered.
"there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability"
This is also a precedent for actually reading the references before assuming they fail RS. The issue in question, which you can download yourself, contains a complete list of the over a dozen contributors and editors. This includes, among several well-known names in the Mac community, two of the most widely referenced game reviewers on this project, appearing in hundreds of articles.
"I've asked politely several times"
You asked exactly one time. And you did so above the part where it says "Please add new comments below this notice.", which is why I never saw it. But fine, ping my account.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked on the article talk page, in my first post on this page, in the post you mentioned, and in my last post. The download doesn't work on my computer. A clean copy of that page and the other refs would be appreciated. – czar 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, feel free to ping the email address attached to my account here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Any issues with the email? I have it in PNG format now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What sources exist for the Gameplay section? – czar 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ned's Fate: The Glory Days[edit]

Ned's Fate: The Glory Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Ned's Fate: The Glory Days" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Doesn't appear to be notable. And there's obviously a conflict of interest too. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - no indication of notability. Neutralitytalk 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As with the company that developed the game, I would recommend speedy deletion if not already at AfD. There is nothing about this game online other than the Wikipedia article. Fails GNG terribly. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not tell us why the game is important and contains almost no information on it. Anarchyte 11:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7 and tagged as such. I had previously tagged this article, but the article creator deleted it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence at all of notability. (@Narutolovehinata5: Speedy deletion criterion A7 applies only to "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event", and this does not fall under any of those categories.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
G11 is an option. --TTTommy111 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. It is likely that the intention in creating the article was promotion, but nothing about the contents of the article is particularly promotional: it just tells us what the game is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 04:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul the Whale[edit]

Paul the Whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Paul the Whale" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable video game. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable as mentioned, and the current text reads like marketing copy. Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete for translation issues, non notable and being a fluffy piece. RbAxM33320 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above. Clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cocoron[edit]

Cocoron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Cocoron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Same deletion rationale as 2009. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no hits in a search of the Internet Archive's gaming magazine collection. The refs currently in the article are not reliable (see WP:VG/RS). The author's response was that "All officially released games get wiki pages and don't need to pass notability standards" but couldn't find where that was backed by policy or consensus (it isn't). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - Unfortunately there's nothing to suggest independent notability or even minimal improvement with my searches finding some of the same results or nothing at all apart from this (at News). SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. All I found were blog reviews. shoy (reactions) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and above editors. Nothing to show independent notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per reasoning below and WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeWorldGroup[edit]

FreeWorldGroup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "FreeWorldGroup" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

No independent sources except for a blog interview, not notable. Conifer (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a moderator on the website and am good friends with the owner. A lot of the information came directly from him. --05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. First, we discourage writing about subjects where you have a conflict of interest, like being friends with the owner. Second, we can't included information on Wikipedia based on original research, which includes personal knowledge that isn't published in a reliable source. Conifer (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't sources on this count as reliable? They're from trusted, truthful websites (Alexa in particular only shows stats, LinkedIn is meant to give information on Valzano), and it's not like they're lies. As someone who's been active on the site for 5 years, maybe more, I can say that there are no inaccuracies within this. Do you want traffic details specifically for Bowman 2 (one game which boasts millions of plays?)? Something more concrete? Could you give us the very definition of what you want so that we may give you just that? I'm not sure what you consider "original research". You seem to bend that to "something I do not approve of" and I find it very strange.Foopzheart (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well sorry mate but anyone who isn't friends with him isn't going to have enough information to write a Wikipedia article that the mods here consider "valid". In fact, I'm not sure Chuck Norris doing a Jedi mind trick is.

Does a LinkedIn profile clearly of the owner aswell as reliable references written by the owner really not count? What do you want from me when that's all there is? When those are what he gave me as references when I asked for them? --Flobberz (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn profiles are textbook WP:SELFPUB sources which cannot be used to establish notability or anything at all really except establishing uncontroversial facts. This is because they are not independent of the subject and exist to promote it, this is contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I browsed around some and could find nothing reliable that discusses this outfit. Note: of course LinkedIn is not reliable--at best it's a directory. The Alexa score isn't particularly high. The definition of what's reliable is in WP:RS, and what the writer needs to realize is that an encyclopedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. (This stuff is handled in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, and of course in most freshman comp classes.) Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
An article was posted just three days ago containing information relating to the site. Give us some time and more will be found. Unfortunately others have been removed, including a detailed list of website analytics and statistics from Mochiland, however I'll do my best to collect some more. Since this discussion was started (might I add just hours after I wrote the article, like seriously) at least 15 more references have been added, so it's obvious that I (and others) are trying.
You misunderstand that I don't realise what you want from me. I'm well aware that secondary sources are much preferred to primary ones, but frankly they're just the first I have. Just because they're not preferred doesn't mean they can't still be used amongst secondary ones, which I am attempting to find.
If I'm blunt, there's no reason to really care, to be honest. We have no reason to lie - in fact we have just about every reason to tell the truth. There's no need for it to be so bureaucratic. Flobberz (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has only been started - give the writer(s) more time to find sources of information. The current alexa rating is not relevant, as most site activity was in the past.--JSwho (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep We have taken action based on what you said. We've added almost 30 references including books, websites, blogs, journals, news articles, website statistics, reviews, videos and even research papers. We've put a lot of work into it and by now I'd say it's pretty reliable and professional. There are many worse on Wikipedia so if this gets deleted, so should many others. Thank you. --Flobberz (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject does not have significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources, so it does not come anywhere near passing WP:GNG. This is enough for deletion on its own, but the very likely UDPE makes me confident that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Winner42, Conifer, Drmies, and comments made by Flobberz. "You have to be friends with the owner in order to write the article" is a pretty large red flag, because that's almost exactly the opposite of GNG. The sources do not meet RS, as all the mentions are trivial; for example, a "scholarly article" listed the website as a "software cited" for Flash, and L'espresso, supposedly published by Indiana University, is in Italian(?), the URL is from Google.hk(?), and after all that mentions the URL exactly once in the entire six issues in the "pack." That mention, by the way, is in conjunction with reviews about games hosted on the site. That is effectively what the majority of the sources show, which is "the name was mentioned, once"), or are cruft links to different parts of the website. Those are by definition trivial. No RS = no GNG = no article. MSJapan (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Purely promotional article about non-notable game developer, no evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Eric Trautmann[edit]

Eric Trautmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Eric Trautmann" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • comment I can find some interviews ([29], [30]) in comics-related zines, and can also find a fair amount of his work, but I must admit that I'm not sure what would be considered RS for folks in this genre, and would love some advice on that if anyone has it. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject clearly produces a lot of material that is published in various formats, but all the references to it that I can find, are either promotional in nature, or do not discuss him or his work in any detailed manner. Noting that apparently there is also another Eric Trautmann, an actor and also an author... but not of comic books... and that the article under discussion here is not about that other Eric Trautmann. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above editors, as they've said it all already. Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Capitalist (video game)[edit]

Adventure Capitalist (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Adventure Capitalist (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep- Real game on mobile and pc. Various sources which are reliable.Thursby16 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Enough coverage to establish notability. RPS review: [31], RPS article: [32], 148 Apps review: [33], Washington Post review: [34], Pocket Gamer review: [35], Pocket Gamer article: [36], Business Insider article: [37], brief but relevant mentions on Venture Beat [38], and Kotaku: [39]. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This virtual video game is legit for mobile, tablet and personal computer it is notable and people play it and there is lots of reliable sources and references for this game.Video gamer boy786 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as notability isn't an issue here. A quick google search will find lots of resources. Anarchyte 06:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The game is free; it's a basic program where you just go back every so often and expand your company. It may be simple, but there is nothing that would suggest the game is a fraud of some sort. Players start with lemonade stands and buy more, increasing their profits to buy another business.

As the game progresses, buying more franchises costs more money, managers are available for hire to automatically increase profits outside of gameplay, and "angel investors" are used as an incentive to restart the game, and they can increase profits of individual businesses (lemonade stands, donut shops, etc.) by percentages. Halsalmonella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Very poor arguments here for keeping, almost WP:ILIKEIT. A lot of the sources are WP:ROUTINE and do not cover the game in depth. JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I already listed enough sources to establish notability regardless of the other poor arguments. WP:ROUTINE doesn't even apply here, it's not an event. Four reviews from reliable sources is satisfactory coverage for video game article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo There's not much to cover in-depth. I suggest you play the game yoirself and see what I'm saying.

--Halsalmonella (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was no consensus with regards to deletion. Merger is an editorial decision not requiring an AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Professional Super Smash Bros. competition[edit]

Professional Super Smash Bros. competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Professional Super Smash Bros. competition" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, trivia and primary sourced content including local tournaments. Author tried to add it to the main Super Smash Bros. Melee article, but it was removed[40] Once all the unwanted content is removed, there's not enough content to justify a standalone article. So merge to related articles which are already linked to from this page. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge (or even just redirect) to respective game article sections on competitive play is most appropriate, based on the secondary source coverage. Then merge this specific title to Super_Smash_Bros.#Competitive_play. I suspect that there might eventually be enough coverage to spin out a fuller article summary style but if and when that happens, it should be sourced to secondary sources and not the mountain of primary sources as it is now. – czar 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I removed the list, though some major tournaments do have cited results in secondary sources, Prisencolinensinainciusol's efforts are impressive and understandable. There are still 25 remaining sources including a documentary covering the scene. Multiple sources have emphysized the uniqueiness of the growth of competitive Melee. If merge to Melee may violate WP:TOOLONG. Also NOTGAMEGUIDE focuses on inuniverse information. Valoem talk contrib 06:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    No it wouldn't, content about players go in their articles (which is about half of it), The Smash Brothers already has a page, remove the how-to content, and Major League Gaming already has a page, that's 90% of it gone.--Vaypertrail (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep I don't understand why you think info about the competitive scene is okay on the player's pages, MLG and The Smash Brothers, but not on its own page or elsewhere. If we only have it on player pages then we get an non NPOV summary of major smash tournaments. For an analogy, you can't give an impartial History of the National Basketball Association solely through information on the History of the New York Knicks and other teams. Also, where exactly is the how-to content on this page? --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Other than the first few, the tournaments listed here had competitors attend from all of the US and in many cases internationally. As Valoem stated there's a lot of media coverage about Smash Bros. tournaments, probably enough so to justify this article and the list of tournaments. However, if the list isn't notable enough for Wikipedia I'd say it might as well just get merged into the main SSBM article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there's a future for this article but I'm not sure the content is there now. Either the article should be expanded or there should be a judicious merge to Super Smash Bros.#Competitive play (keeping in mind WP:Summary style) and other articles and then a subsequent redirect to the same section. (It's fun how a comment can recommends two mutually exclusive options.)

    I've always found tournament listings as were here (whether physical or virtual sports) to be on the verge of WP:TRIVIA. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

    • It's the major tournament that make up the competitive Smash Bros. scene, so I wouldn't really say it's very trivial. I can understand that you'd think that way if you don't follow the professional players but none-the-less the tournaments listed here are well documented and relatively well known.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The funny fact is that I do follow them. Don't presume, please. The problem with such listings in general is that they fall in the WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile of stuff and provide no interesting WP:Summary style information that is published by reliable sources seeking to understand their meaning. I quite clearly qualified it by saying "all such listings verge on WP:TRIVIA", so also do not presume to imply that it was specifically Smash tournament listings with which I have issue. To expand a bit further, it gets into issues of WP:WEIGHT in a large majority of cases. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say that it's an indiscriminate list of information, since these tournaments are recognized as national-level tournaments. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "provide no interesting WP:Summary style information". I mean if it came down to it a prose description of all of the tournaments would just be written. That being said, in order to conform to WP notability standards the list would probably have to be trimmed down. Perhaps it would be best to only include tournaments from 2013-onward.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - The massive chart is WP:GAMECRUFT, and once you trim out the excessive stuff (like these all these names/nicknames of people who have no article or context to them), there's really not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I know that there are tons of sources right now which extensively document the competitive scene. Sources provided by Prisencolinensinainciusol already suggest that a merge may be too long for the SSBM article. Other editors such as UltraDark who is familiar with FGC may be able to help as well. In the past 2 years smash has received more coverage that Professional StarCraft competition. Valoem talk contrib 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources posted:
  1. Crossley, Rob. "Super Smash Bros Tournament Endorsed by Nintendo". Gamespot. Retrieved 2015-08-20. 

    The article notes:

    Nintendo has signed a sponsorship deal with the games tournament group Apex, endorsing the event's quartet of Smash Bros competitions.Apex 2015, a three-day pro-games tournament which starts on January 30, will include individual competitions on all four games in the Nintendo series; Super Smash Bros for the N64, Super Smash Bros Melee for the GameCube, Super Smash Bros Brawl for the Wii, and the recently released Super Smash Bros for Wii U.First details of the partnership were announced via Apex's official twitter feed. "We are pleased to announce that Apex 2015 is partnering with Nintendo of America to bring an incredible Smash Bros event," the team wrote.

  2. "Feature: The History of Super Smash Bros.". Nintendo Life. 2014-08-28. Retrieved 2015-08-20. 

    The article notes:

    For the average player, wavedashing and other unofficial techniques were of little relevance, but the reason why they’re so significant is because they helped to catapult Melee into the competitive gaming scene. The advanced level of control required to perform many of these actions quickly created a clear distinction between pro and more casual players. As a result, Melee has enjoyed great lasting appeal, and still makes regular appearances at many high-profile gaming tournaments.

  3. "Competitive Smash is having a moment, but its players can’t even agree on a game". ArsTechnica. 2015-05-17. Retrieved 2015-08-20. 

    The article notes:

    His last two games have taken this logic to heart. Melee’s speed has been integral to its appeal as a competitive game. Top players can mash up to six to seven inputs a second, on par with Starcraft.

4. Also this source from Tech Times which states:
"The longevity of Melee was bolstered further by an increasingly large focus on tournament play. While it was never strictly built for high-level competition, Melee attracted a huge number of players that focused on playing the game competitively. The phrase "Final Destination, no items," became standard rhetoric for the game, and the tournament scene continues to thrive even 13 years after Melee was released."

This subject needs expansion not deletion. The subject has been covered by reliable sources and passed WP:GNG. There are tons more sources regarding the growth of this scene. Izno, Sergecross73 Valoem talk contrib 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The article's from NintendoLife and Techtimes really focus much more on the game series itself than the competition. (They're both called "The History of Smash Bros" after all, and detail the series as a whole from its inception.) They really only reiterate my point that a merge is a appropriate. (If the sources talk in passing of the competitive nature in discussion of the overall series, then it makes more sense that we do the same, and have this be a subsection in our Smash Bros article.) I can't comment on the Ars Technica source, as you added the wrong link for that one. The very brief GameSpot article, while fine, could basically be used for a singular sentence to the capacity of "Nintendo is sponsoring a tournament with this company on that date. Not much to expand on there... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple more sources, one from MLG and one from USGamer that I uncovered in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmashBoards that I think definitely establish notability for this topic and which could lead to WP:SIZE/WP:WEIGHT problems in the series-proper article. My inclination is, as with Smashboards, to a weak keep. --Izno (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you guys are just looking at sources that describe the existence of competitive smash as a whole, you're ignoring all of the sources that describe various players and aspects of the competitive scene. I'll need to read about this more but the way I see WP:GNG is that the existence of sources that "talk around" or allude to a particular subject should be enough to establish notability.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The GNG is pretty explicit that "talking around it" is not "Significant coverage", [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail. The players is not the topic (which is professional Smash). I'm not sure what you mean by "aspects" but I presume you're talking about the advanced techs which again do not address the scene. My weak keep is based on the existence of articles such as the MLG and the USGamer articles I noted. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a published book about competitive Smash too that should be considered. (Team Ben: A Year As A Pro Gamer, Fabiszak, Christopher K., 2013)--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it actually "published" though, or did he just self-submit it to Kindle type download sources. I could only find evidence of the latter, which would be less impactful... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a print version of the book, that I know. However it really shouldn't really matter too much.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a good source which covers the competitive scene significantly. Valoem talk contrib 21:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Garena Premier League[edit]

Garena Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Also nominating the following for the same reason:

League of Legends Masters Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
League of Legends Pro League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Garena Premier League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

All video gaming leagues with no substantial independant coverage (WP:GNG). All articles are created by the same author that I asked to provide sources, but this request seems to have been ignored. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vaypertrail, split these? You should only bundle when it's unquestionable that they will be considered as a whole. These leagues/series are not being considered as a whole. – czar 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The Garena Premier League has received substantial independent coverage in Southeast Asia. A very quick news search reveals the following dedicated articles: [41], [42], [43], [44]. At least some of these articles seem to be written by (presumably reliable) major media outlets. Additionally, those websites seem to be hosting many articles on the subject of the article -- they don't seem to be one-off "human interest" articles on a niche topic. I will add the English source to the article. I believe the other two nominated articles are entirely separate tournaments run by separate organizations in separate countries and shouldn't be included with the GPL. Richard Yetalk 04:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Aren't those just gaming blogs and esports organisations already associated to it?--Vaypertrail (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Then most of the articles should be removed already due to this measurement. As I said, as a content of the League of Legends World Championship, it has the notability already. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'Lao_Động' is one of the largest newspapers in Vietnam, and vietnamnet.vn is a highly prominent Vietnamese website. Both websites rank in the top 5000 globally. Given their level of dedicated, continual coverage of the events, I think it would qualify the article under GNG. Richard Yetalk 01:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is better to add English source of course, but the Chinese source should be also regarded. Add the Chinese source please. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong keep. It doesn't make sense of AfD just due to no source is given. Those three articles are highly notable as a content of the League of Legends professional competition. The article has to be expanded, indeed, source must be given too. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to NewBee. Anyone wanting to merge should obviously discuss on tp (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 01:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wang "Banana" Jiao[edit]

Wang "Banana" Jiao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Wang "Banana" Jiao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Protect and merge to NewBee, no independant coverage outside of that. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect no independent coverage for this individual in a video game reliable sources custom Google search or Daily Dot—redirection to their parent team as a useful search term should be obvious. No protection necessary as long as this AfD's consensus is enforced. – czar 14:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Redirect Held the top spot for all time esports earnings for several months. A fact which is reported by reliable sources which in theory would mean he should have received significant coverage, but this is the closest I found. I believe the significant coverage may be found in Chinese language sources but my attempts to find them using google translate have proven fruitless. I am open to changing my mind if someone can find good foreign language sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect - per Czar and nom. Lack of dedicated coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Maybe renominate some of these separately?  Sandstein  06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Carbon (Halo team)[edit]

Carbon (Halo team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Also nominating additional articles as the same reason applies:

Team 3D (esports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EDward Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Final Boss (Halo team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ViCi Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Carbon (Halo team)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

All video gaming "esports" teams with no substantial independant coverage (WP:GNG). All articles are created by the same author that I asked to provide sources, but this request seems to have been ignored. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vaypertrail, can you run these separately? They're going to have different outcomes even if you would personally lump them all together. – czar 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do split them and I'll be happy to repost, but here are my thoughts if you don't: Redirect Team Carbon (main coverage is of 343 hiring Carbon's Eric Hewitt) to Major League Gaming with this Engadget story. Redirect Team 3D to World Cyber Games 2005 – no in-depth secondary source coverage, but they are best known for their 2005 win: [45] Redirect likewise for Final Boss, as they're the same team as Team 3D. If others don't think it's a useful search term, then delete it. Keep Edward Gaming, "one of China's best professional League of Legends teams" and the subject of [46]. The so-called "super team" of China has two paragraphs of background at [47]. And then there's the incidental coverage at [48] and the passing mentions in a VGRS search. Redirect Vici Gaming to The International (Dota 2). They are best known for placing second in the 2014 International[49], but haven't received more than passing mentions in the VGRS and Daily Dot. Anyone who wins this year will of course get more coverage, but WP is not a crystal ball. Redirection makes the most sense for now as a useful search term. Notes in general: The Daily Dot is our main RS for eSports, and if they don't cover the team, it's unlikely that we will. Thanks for taking on the cleanup—a number of these articles have been spammed from other WP-compatible wikis. – czar 14:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Many of the Asian teams have a lot of sources that aren't in English, so I'm having a lot of trouble finding them. Keep Team 3D, there was a whole book written about it, I think that pretty much settles any concerns about reliable sources.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The book's about their rivalry with another team in the context of the 2005 Cyber Games. If it needs to spill out of that article, it can do so summary style – czar 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SmashBoards[edit]

SmashBoards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "SmashBoards" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:WEB, the only independent sources are a mention by Kotaku when a bunch of sites were DDoS'd[50] and mention on 1UP that someone got feedback from there. There is gytnews but cannot check that as the website is dead.[51] The rest of the sources are unreliable or affiliated with subject. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 16:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, tons of sources included in the article including additional sources not added Tech Times, Cinemablend, Kotaku, and WDC. I was the person who previously noamintaed Smashboards for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smashboards, but the article has since been expanded with appropriate sources. Valoem talk contrib 06:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    Where are these "tons of sources"? All the sources you provided here are one off mentions. WDC is just a Q&A with three fans of the game, and not actually about the website.--Vaypertrail (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't find the NP reference to be affiliated with the subject. That aside, this is what the article looks like trimmed just to the RS which I believe talk about the article-proper. (I can't evaluate further since I'm at work which blocks some of the websites.) Probably the best solution is to start a section on the Smash eco-system in Super Smash Bros. or to add some of this content to #Competitive play there. Consider this a merge !vote.See the below-the-relist for evaluation. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reviewing the MLG article, I believe the two paragraphs therein and alone suffice to establish notability per WP:GNG #1.

    The GYTNews source at archive.org talks about a news event and only tangentially relates; it could be useful for a different article. I don't have the NP source to hand; someone at WP:VG may have access. Given my initial assertion, I would say that this meets the notability guidelines. This a weak keep with no prejudice for or against a merge of the content elsewhere in a later discussion. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

    Significant coverage entails multiple reliable sources, not just two paragraphs in one – czar 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    I was very careful to verify what the GNG says on that point. From the WP:GNG, bullet 3: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] In other words, there is no requirement for multiple sources. Are the two paragraphs enough? I think so. Why? They clearly establish the notability of the website, specifically Little did the founder of Smash World know that his website would blow up into one of the biggest and most dedicated independent competitive gaming communities in the world. A reputable source has clearly published their evaluation of the site as being notable. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you'll find much sympathy on AfD for keeping an article based on two paragraphs, is all. I think the line you quoted is aimed more at book-length treatment and surely isn't a popular sentiment at AfD. Depth of coverage requires more than a few blurbs. Nothing else to add, just wanted to address that one point – czar 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, but the two paras was the basis for the weak part of the keep. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    A review of the above sources from Valoem is interesting. I would discount three of those sites, namely not the Kotaku review. A brief search of kotaku.com for Smashboards seems to indicate that there is regular referencing and coverage of what people are saying on the site. I'm not immediately certain that all of them are/aren't blogs, so someone might want to poke into that. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Brief breeze thru seems to confirm initial suspicions that all are one-off mentions (and a number in the comments), besides the first few which are part of the article's text proper. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    This is a neat article from the WP:VG/RS Google custom search. Probably more appropriate for the competitive article which is also being AFDd. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable sources that are discussing the subject (Smashboards, not Smash Bros, its glitches, or these other things) in significant detail. I'm fine with a merge/redirect if some sort of article or subsection is created about the game's competitive scene, but not really with a standalone article like this, unless some better sources are presented... Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep well documented by secondary sources. Also, I'd like too point out that there used to be a lot of mentions the MLG website that have been lost as MLG has periodically deleted some of the content from its website.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Where? Can you supply some of these sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nanolathe[edit]

Nanolathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Nanolathe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unsourced, crufty article about a fictional technology in a computer game. I can find nothing in reliable secondary sources to indicate that this is notable, and it's already covered in sufficient detail at Total Annihilation. Reyk YO! 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Commander (Total Annihilation)[edit]

Commander (Total Annihilation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Commander (Total Annihilation)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article is little more than a game guide and is full of personal opinions. It cites no sources whatsoever, and I can find nothing substantial in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing worthwhile to merge, as this unit is already covered in sufficient detail at Total Annihilation. Reyk YO! 08:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This belongs on a fan website for the game, not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely a game guide. No history, notability or content other relevant other than in-game.Shinerite (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement and although there are linking articles, I'm not seeing much hope for this. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nitrome.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Magic Touch (game)[edit]

Magic Touch (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Magic Touch (game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not seem to have sufficient independent coverage. A search only found a few websites hosting the web game, a Wikia source, and articles about an unrelated smartphone app. Article is unsourced. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, this article was plagiarized from Nitrome Wiki. Original article. NitromeNobody (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's fine if it's attributed since Wikia is cc-by-sa. Only an issue if the text was plagiarized to Wikia in the first place (but then cite that original location in the copyvio req) – czar 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nitrome. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the dev article is always preferred to deletion. Redirection is more useful than deletion. Also after this closes, please rename to "(video game)" per naming conventions. – czar 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Intec, Inc.[edit]

Intec, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Intec, Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This tiny article is the only thing I could find resembling coverage of this company. Sam Walton (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Well-known accessory company, but thin sourcing and it reads as an WP:ATTACK piece from the lower portion of the article which is just 'boy they make really terrible and cheap consoles that are clones of the Wii' (yeah, I saw the ProJared review, but the article itself admits that they didn't put their name on this so it could be one of the PopStation cloners grabbing a name at random and trading off it). Nate (chatter) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - My searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Guilty Gear soundtracks[edit]

List of Guilty Gear soundtracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "List of Guilty Gear soundtracks" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

After postponing doing some work on this for a long time, I finally decided to add some info. However, just after I finished editing the OST for Guilty Gear X, I realized that all of the OSTs have more comprehensive information on their respective game pages! Unless people are willing to add track listings and info for the various arrange albums for Guilty Gear (most of them listed on Daisuke Ishiwatari's discography), I don't see the point in keeping this page around. Thoughts? Jotamide (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm leaning towards a support but I'll think more about it. It's kind of complicated matter. I also started working on it some time ago. However, I noticed that this info could easily go in the main game articles. Nevertheless, articles like the Mana series have music information on their respective game pages (Final Fantasy Adventure#Music, Secret of Mana#Music) and also have a main page for the music. I'll not oppose it, though, because I don't think we have a comparable coverage for Guilty Gear and because of the current state of this list. What's your opinion, Jotamide, and others' opinion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete useless array of names of non-notable pieces of music, WP:LISTCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's very little content beyond present beyond the tracklists, which don't really translate to meaning much in most video games, where song titles aren't prominently featured in the game, and as such, are just a list of names without any recognizability. I have no problem if someone wants to restart such an article someday, should there be enough sources and content to warrant a lot more prose, but as is, its better presented in the individual game articles (or series article.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sega#Company_reshuffling_and_digital_market_focus_.282013.E2.80.93present.29. – czar 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hardlight[edit]

Hardlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Hardlight" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article without sources about a subsidiary of Sega. Looks like most sources are related, so fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sega rather than delete as my searches such as this found results but nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hmm. I created a userspace draft for this topic last year that I kind of abandoned. At the time, I think my understanding was that the topic was notable, but the majority of sources I am finding right now are primarily about games that this studio makes, as opposed to the studio itself. I would, for now, support either merging or redirecting to Sega, but in the meantime, I'm going to keep digging. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sega — Reluctantly, I admit that in reliable sources, information about the studio itself has been largely ignored in favor of reporting on the games it produces. Almost every mention of Hardlight is done in passing in an article about one of their games. With that being said, I believe the best course of option is to redirect to Sega for now. Hopefully more information will be published later to warrant an article. Mz7 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The one source in the article from Develop is the only one I can find that goes into depth on the studio itself (as opposed to being tied to the popular Sonic Dash mobile game). Searchable term and what's in that Develop article can be expanded to a paragraph or two about the studio without a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sludge Crawler[edit]

Sludge Crawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Sludge Crawler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Appears to fail notability guidelines, no sources, reliable or otherwise. hewhoamareismyself 23:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Game released Nov. 24, 2006. Approximately 900 have played it according to the download page at cnet.com, which is the only reliable source I could find, except that this source only reproduces the publishers description. All other appearances online appear to be blogs and wikis. Article is unreferenced. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 23:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. As a download site, cnet is not independent. A redirect to publisher Manifesto Games would also be reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll create the proposed redirect in my capacity as an editor.  Sandstein  18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Key of Avalon[edit]

The Key of Avalon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "The Key of Avalon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

In doubt if this game is notable enough for inclusion. A quick check reveals 16k Google hits (effectively 172), a lot of them related. The Banner talk 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete No references to indicate how this meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - My searches found nothing good at all. There are a few good move targets but it's probably best to delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - The article creator is currently indef blocked, and actively socking and block evading. Its not a speedy delete, since he made it before he was indef blocked, but Admin/closer, please be wary of any WP:SPAs. They could be socks. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom and above editors. Search revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Search proves weak. Fishy creation account etc.Shinerite (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of Sega arcade video games. This is an obvious search term worthy of a redirect. Most of its relevant sourcing is offline but the little that exists shows that it was important for Sega: [52][53][54] (1up.com is a WP:VG/RS.) Also search without the "The". – czar 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Beware of the Penguins[edit]

Beware of the Penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Beware of the Penguins" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NVIDEOGAMES. No coverage found at all beyond marketplace listings and primary sources. It was PROD'd, but that was removed. ~ RobTalk 05:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Curt Chiarelli[edit]

Curt Chiarelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Curt Chiarelli" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This individual lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits for news sources in a general search or video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no particularly relevant redirect targets, though I'd accept a redirect to his best-known work: Mortal Kombat. Please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. – czar 07:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I find no reliable sources at all to this individual. The non- RS sources on the very poorly constructed article don't even verify the facts, so it appears WP:OR may also be a factor. Obviously I cannot see the article deleted in the prior AfD, but the discussion there seems to describe an article quite like the one at hand here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's too many possible redirects. Anarchyte 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources can be found (I can't find any, but there may be some in specialist videogame magazinea). I can see the deleted 2005 article, which is on the same guy but doesn't have anything of use. – iridescent 22:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Czar's suggestion to repurpose the article in a "List of..." format should be discussed subsequently on the talk page.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Formula One video games[edit]

Formula One video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Formula One video games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Moderate notability with regards to the Fomula One articles and the F1 video games' articles are already connected through a navbox and a category, making a dedicated article which simply repeats what's already here in other namespaces redundant. Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per page statistics, the navbox has 53 views in the past 30 days, taking into consideration that it may not count views from the box placed on other pages (I couldn't find that information of where the box is actually placed throughout Wikipedia)... while over that same period, the catagory has 526 views and this article has 4381 views. While these numbers are based off of software marked as beta, it does appear that the reader would stand to lose more accessibility by deleting the article rather than the navbox or catagory if the argument is simply that of redundancy. Twirlypen (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Also, while it lacks any inline citations whatsoever, it is heavily referenced. Poor MOS shouldn't get an article deleted on that alone. Twirlypen (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just one of the games got 31244 views in the last thirty days, while the average F1 season article had 128248. For the video game article, that's nearly eight times as much as the list of the games. So the list itself doesn't get that much attention at all. And like you self-admitted your numbers on the navbox are incorrect. Here are all the articles to transclude the navbox. Everytime these articles are viewed the navbox get at view as well. Tvx1 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, your example is right at the top of the current season article as a "Not to be confused with..." notation. I'd bet that game article would still have at least 95% of its traffic even if there were no F1 video game list, category, or navbox at all. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Might not be a very good article, but it is more than a mere list and features some prose that can be the base for a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep ...for the fact F1 videogames were pretty common in the 1980s through 1990s so I can't see how this topic is of "moderate notability". Donnie Park (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because they existed, does not make them notable. There is a general guideline for that. By the way, we wouldn't be deleting this information from the wikipedia entirely. These games have their own articles. And every of this articles includes a box listing all the produced F1 video games .Tvx1 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. As an example of how the subject matter as a whole has got coverage see here. Polequant (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just one source does not satisfy the GNG's "significant coverage". Besides the information would not be removed from the wikipedia entirely. Tvx1 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the GNG about the number of sources needed (though I found that after a minute looking, so would reasonably expect to see more, oh, and after another minute see this). And I have no idea what you mean by your second sentence. Polequant (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say that the GNG does call for multiple sources otherwise it it would have called for coverage in a reliable source not reliable sources (notice. The plural).--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It says multiple sources are generally expected. But that doesn't mean required. In any case I have given multiple sources now. Polequant (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sim racing, page is redundant as there's nothing that doesn't already fit elsewhere. None of the Keeps have actually refuted the nomination reason.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Repurpose to List of Formula One video games. Many of the keep rationales above are not based in policy or much depth. And as for whether categories, lists, templates can be redundant (as nominated)), WP:CLN says it can. I think the list is a smarter way of getting through the ugly navbox. Anyway, these are all clearly linked to F1 as a brand and once all the unsourced material is removed, the list should be sufficient. – czar 15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't object to renaming to 'List of...' and lists can still have background information. Unsourced information shouldn't just be deleted, it should be looked at to see whether it can be sourced. Also interesting to note that the GNG says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Though I think I've shown notability anyway, WP:USEFUL is sometimes a reason to keep, particularly for lists. Polequant (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Unsourced info should just be deleted. If you would like to salvage it, that's on the contributing editor or any other interested party. – czar 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, but using admin discretion to specify that this is without prejudice to individual noms (group nom for varied topics within a same field is a bad idea); thanks however to NickCT for at least trying to make a good-faith attempt at a bold solution to a long-standing dramafest. Hopefully a partial solution might emerge from individual discussions about merging some articles into others.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Depression Quest[edit]

Depression Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Depression Quest" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Following a discussion on Jimbo's talkpage, I'm submitting several articles loosely related to the Gamergate Controversy (i.e. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Fredrick Brennan, Depression Quest) to AfD. I submit these articles under the following rationale;

  1. Examining these articles' edit histories makes it clear that they were created in response to the Gamergate Controversy. It is not clear that the subjects of these articles would be notable outside their role in this single event. It is not clear the Gamergate Controversy would qualify as highly significant; thus, per WP:BLP1E, individual articles for these subjects may not be appropriate.
  2. The Gamergate Controversy article became subject of a significant Arbcom Case, which seemed to make it evident that a number of WP editors had become passionately concerned with the event, and some even felt personal affected by it. That said, we should remember that Notability is global. Things are notable if the "outside world" (i.e. not the world of Wikipedians) has taken note of it. The Gamergate Controversy and related articles have clearly been subject to far more attention on WP than would be warranted by coverage in reliable source. It seems likely these articles exist as a result of navel gazing rather than genuine notability.
  3. Finally, an argument based outside of policy; the amount of wikidrama surrounding this event and related articles seems unhealthy. For the benefit of WP as a whole, it may help to reduce the amount coverage given to these subjects.

As a personal post-script, I'd like to note that I'm not proposing these deletions out of misogynism or callousness towards alleged victims of cyberbullying. Misogyny and cyberbullying (including but not limited to doxing, death threats and/or threats of violence/injury) are pretty pathetic, lame and immature. That said, unfortunately misogyny and cyberbullying do exist, and we should be careful not to use WP as a soapbox to highlight individual examples of those practices which aren't covered by external sources.

Unfortunately, given the number of WP editors who have become personally involved/interested with the Gamergate Controversy, I seriously doubt all or any of these proposals will be succesful. To those editors with extensive history editing Gamergate articles, I'd ask you to try to dispassionately assess the proposed deletions by our notability guidelines.

I may propose more deletions using the rationales above, if I find more articles which appear to be created purely in response to Gamergate. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fredrick Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zoe Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Strong Keep - I am full on against the notion to delete these articles. They're all properly sourced and have notability to them. I mean, God sakes. Depression Quest and Zoe Quinn were known before GamerGate. Frederick is pretty much 8chan's M00t. And while I will say GamerGate casted a spotlight on Wu, there's still enough info on her to warrant an article here on this site. I'm really getting tired of people wanting to delete articles or have an all out war on this site just because some people have differing opinions on GamerGate here. It's been almost a year since this whole thing started for crying out loud. GamerPro64 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: - Tired of which people wanting to delete these articles? This is their first deletion request. And if they were known before GamerGate, why didn't they have articles before GamerGate? NickCT (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn was nominated for deletion in June 2014 (pre GamerGate) and was kept; Brianna Wu was nominated in October 2014; Frederick Brennan was nominated in December 2014. TheZoe Quinn article was created in May 2014, months before GamerGate. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, you nominated Depression Quest while its in the middle of a Good Article Nomination. While not uncommon, couldn't you have at least waited for the outcome on the nomination? GamerPro64 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bilby and GamerPro64: - Ok. I missed the earlier AfDs. Apologies. Re "TheZoe Quinn article was created in May 2014" - True. But if you look at the earliest revisions of her article they reference the harrassment that would become Gaergate. Her article was clearly created in response to the nascent Gamergate. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The harassment that would become GamerGate? Starting from May 2014? Oh come on. I feel like you're grasping at straws at this point. GamerPro64 15:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: - So you're saying that the harassment mentioned in Quinn's earliest revisions wasn't Gamergate? Could be. I'm really not that familiar with the controversy. But it strikes me as unusual that she would have been subject to multiple different events of harassment over the same thing. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is probably better to think of it that some of the harassment Quinn has gotten from GG is continuation of harassment she got prior to GG as a result of releasing DQ; the harassment from GG built atop that with other factors (re claims from Gjoni's post) joining in. --MASEM (t)
  • @GRuban: - Read the discussion on Jimbo's talkpage. I'm not alone in feeling the amount of coverage on this topic ought to be reduced. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Nominating four articles for deletion when you yourself don't think you'll succeed is an excellent example of WP:POINT. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @GRuban: - Ok. So how would you go about delete pages that probably don't meet notability guidelines, but for one reason or another wouldn't be deleted by AfD? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
        • They do meet Notability guidelines, easily: "extensive coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's why they haven't been deleted. Probably? You mean you nominated them without even you yourself being sure? Yet you are wasting our time here? What does WP:POINT mean to you? --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @Gruban: - Your argument is that you must be sure that articles don't meet notability guidelines before nominating? So all unsuccessful deletion are bad faith essentially? Seems like a high standard. I think AfD exists to test notability. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason for deletion of a notable (shows NYT coverage)topic is given. If one feels the content in any article gives undue weight to anything, then the article talk page is the proper venue. Nominating multiple articles when one feels the case for deletion is weak is bootless. Collect (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Collect: - Did you look at those NYT articles? Almost all of them cover GamerGate as the primary topic. Seems to re-enforce the WP:BLP1E argument. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that does not mean this topic is BLP1E (I would point out that this article is about the game, thus must meet notability requirements as the game and BLP1E is very weak when dealing with an article about the game.) Collect (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All the other points I'd like to make have been done by other editors, so I'll just address the whole wikidrama angle: The vast majority of edit warring, topic bans, and drama in this topic area is centered on the Gamergate controversy article. These related articles for the most part don't attract that much drama, just the odd BLP smear every few months. Deleting these articles wouldn't cull the drama, because most of the time they are not where the drama comes from. Brustopher (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brustopher: - Fair enough. But should we really be maintaining articles that were generated because of Wikidrama, even when those articles don't generate much drama themselves? NickCT (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @NickCT: As has already been pointed out, most of the articles you've nominated were created months before Gamergate began, by people who have subsequently had no involvement in this wikidrama. The one article created during the drama (Brennan) was largely written by GRuban: who I don't think has even touched the Gamergate article (correct me if wrong). It's clear you're trying to do a good thing here, but you don't seem to properly understand the issues you're trying to provide a solution for. Brustopher (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brustopher: - Look at the earliest iterations of the Brennan article. It includes reference to Gamergate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it might have been created in response to GamerGate. Certainly the timing of the creation would suggest that's the case. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry Nick, I phrased my response poorly. The Brennan article was clearly created due to coverage resulting from Gamergate drama. However, it wasn't created as a result of Gamergate wikidrama, but instead by an established editor with no prior involvement (I think) in any Gamergate edit dispute.Brustopher (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brustopher: - Ok. So my question is would there be an article on Brennan if there was no GG? And if not, doesn't that count as BLP1E? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My answers respectively are no and no. Brennan wouldn't meet GNG without coverage received as a result of gamergate, but he'd received some earlier coverage as a result of his disability.[55][56] There was an RfC on this and everything. Brustopher (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- While I am sympathetic in some ways to the goal of these multiple proposals (which I'll answer here to avoid redundancy), I don't like the fact that this strikes me as using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a proxy an attempt to control Wikipedia 'culture' (with all the positives and negatives the term carries). BLP1E strikes me as inapplicable -- it does not demand that the event in question be "highly significant," merely "significant." 'Gamergate', as such, demanded coverage from many major sources, including the largest newspapers, websites, and television networks. This is the outside world notability we look for. Surely it meets the measure of 'sinificant,' even if I might agree it is not highly significant. Each of the individuals here had a significant role (as measured by the RS), and thus the third prong of WP:BLP1E is not met to my mind. The fact that the gamergate area has become the subject of such vituperation is definitely not a good thing. Perhaps there's an argument that for the good of the encyclopedia, these articles should be deleted. But if that is the case, let's have that debate. Don't cloak a providential suggestion about improving Wikipedia culture in a content guideline. You say the articles are subject to far more attention than is demanded by the coverage. I don't find policing others' Wikipedia interests particularly helpful. We all know editors who spend far more time on minor articles than is "warranted." I, for one, salute them. Imagine, if you will, a dystopian future wherein 99% of edits on Wikipedia are to Pigasus (politics). This would not in and of itself support the idea that Pigasus is not notable. I would urge the nominator to disentangle the two strands of thought, because I find the content argument very weak. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Keep and Boomerang. (edit conflict) Wikipedia has pages for minor porn stars, kiddie cartoon episodes, and obscure video games; Depression Quest isn't close to being the least well known game. Unlike, say, [My Little Pony,] (good grief!) Depression Quest received a good deal of coverage because it used a new medium to explore a social problem not often associated with games. Quinn has been the subject of major profiles -- see the big feature in Boston Magazine for one example. Wu has been widely interviewed and clearly passes GNG both as an advocate for women in computing and as a video game designer-entrepreneur. WP:BLP1E is in any case irrelevant because there is no event: "Gamergate" is the protracted conspiracy of misogynist harassment intended to drive women out of the computing industry by making these targets a stark example of the consequences to be faced by any woman who dares defy it. If editors have sought to defend Wikipedia from Gamergate’s malign designs, they deserve thanks. The massive and continuing influx of brigaded editors, zombie editors, sleepers and sock puppets who all seek to exploit Wikipedia to harass Gamergate’s victims and to improve Gamergate’s reputation is less praiseworthy. To say that Gamergate has not been sufficiently covered by sources outside Wikipedia could indeed suggest misogyny or callousness, and I'm glad the nominator cleared that up! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re "the protracted conspiracy of misogynist harassment intended to drive women out of the computing industry" - hmmmmmm.... Ok. re "To say that Gamergate has not been sufficiently covered by sources outside Wikipedia" - Note, we're not proposing the actual Gamergate controversy article be deleted. That probably meets notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
On “Notifications:” The nominator has been kind enough to notify several editors who participated at Jimbo’s talk page. The editors that were notified at 14:37-14:44 were Ryk72, JzG, DeCausa, Rich Farmbrough, Carrite, DHeyward, Darwinian Ape, Masem, and Chrisrus. Admins who are familiar with the area will recognize the names in this notification list, and within the hour two three of these editors had responded with the first two delete/merge opinions on the page. Participants who were not notified include NorthBySouthBaranof, DaveDial, Liz, and MarkBernstein. Admins who are familiar with the area will recognize these names, too. For my general fund of information, is this considered appropriate Wikipedia procedure? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the assumption of bad faith canvassing Mark. Also thanks for not addressing my point. I've notified Liz/North for the record. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yea, AFTER you saw this. For the record, I wasn't notified either. And I also have made several comments on Jimbo's Tale page regarding these issues. You are disrupting the project to make a point, you know about the ArbCom case and the sanctions(case is listed on your delete proposal), and if anyone has earned a sanction lately(I have zero GG related articles on my Watchlist, and refuse to edit them), it's you. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep DQ was notable under standard video game guidelines (it has development and reception information we require for such games) before GG happened (Several Google News hits before 7/31/2014). Simply being tied to GG doesn't change that, and arguably GG had little directly to impact the game itself, perhaps creating a focal point GG built out of, and if you take coverage of DQ that is beyond its ties to GG since it started ,its even gotten more reviews that I can see by non-normal VG outlets (like NYTimes). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: - Fair enough on the pre-GG coverage of DQ. I would note though that most of that coverage is not what you'd call "high quality" coverage. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If we strictly discussed DQ as a video game and only as a video game (only bringing up Quinn's reasons for creating the game and not discussing any of the GG related aspects) it would still pass for a video game article given the typical sourcing available for video games. (There's a number of standard reviews, and there's even a WSJ article on it [57]); all predating GG by at least a year. Obviously the ties to GG enhance that notability. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: - The WSJ article is a mention. Not direct coverage. Anyways, I'll grant DQ is pretty "borderline". NickCT (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps though there's a para that has Quinn explaining positive feedback she's gotten - it definitely should be (if not already) used in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To add to my keep on DQ, I believe the three others (Wu, Quinn, and Brannen) all also are Keep. While I do firmly believe WP:BLP1E is important, all three show that they have notability beyond one event (being GG) - Wu for founding a dev company with a released game, Quinn for writing a notable game, and Brannen for his disabilities prior to 8chan formation. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant GG material to Gamergate controversy. Not notable outside that scope. --DHeyward (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy keep: the bundling of these separate articles is ridiculous, for a start. Depression Quest strikes me as the least notable article, but even that has 18 reliable secondary sources. Fredrick Brennan is definitely notable for creating 8chan; Brianna Wu also seems very notable, with some references dating from before Gamergate even began. Zoe Quinn also has enough coverage from Gamergate-related articles alone to merit coverage; WP:BIO1E says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." It's also worth noting that the reason for the article's creations is completely and utterly irrelevant; what matters is notability. If an attack page on a notable subject was created, we wouldn't count that against the article if it later developed into a well-rounded page. Susceptibility to vandalism is also irrelevant. I recommend a snow close; there's no need to have intrusive AfD notices on the top of several widely viewed pages. However, I'm sure the nomination was made in good faith and there's no evidence of pointed behaviour here. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: - Well thanks for recognizing this isn't a bad faith nomination at least. I think bundling was the right thing to do here, as I think all the articles should be considered under the same rationale. Not sure I get your point Re BIO1E. Are you saying GG is highly significant and Quinn's role in it was a large one? NickCT (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Gamergate controversy has 224 references—that alone isn't proof that it's significant, but I've picked several at random. They're all reliable and provide substantial coverage. Zoe Quinn was the original target and a victim throughout the entire event. GG is highly significant and Quinn is perhaps the most important person in it. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: - re "has 224 references" - Again, I think the spectacular number of reliable-ish references reflects the personal interest of a number of passionate WP editors rather than actual notability. If you look at the references themselves, a large majority some from online publications (e.g. Slate) or special interest publications (e.g. PC Gamer) rather than real mainstream, high-quality sources (e.g. NYT, AP, etc). NickCT (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • But no amount of interest in a subject can overcome a lack of notability. This is not a case of bomardment; yes, there are some special interest publications (not that there's anything wrong with that), but there is substantial high-profile coverage in that list of references. I don't understand your argument against "online publications"—that is not a bad thing. I have seen Slate sources used all over the place and never heard a single person object to them, especially not for the fact that it is available online. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: - To clarify, I'm not arguing that Slate is a bad source, I'm just arguing that it's not as high quality as a mainstream print media source. When the large majority of your references are to sources like Slate, I think it speaks to marginal notability. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. I've seen AfD'd articles survived on two or three online sources. We're dealing with articles that have a combined total of 91 sources here. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete I would agree that this article created in WP because of gamergate. I propose merging it with Zoe Quinn article(or rather extending the depression quest section in that article) In any case we should not consider keeping it just because | Other stuff exists I would not agree with deleting the biographies but this game looks like a prime candidate for deletion. Darwinian Ape talk 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - It easily meets the WP:GNG, and there's enough content present (or out there) to warrant its own article. Seriously, terrible nomination. Stop wasting people's time. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Can an ArbCom AE admin please give NickCT a GG article notification on his page, and instruct him that this kind of disruption is obviously against Wiki rules, not even considering the articles are under ArbCom sanctions. These 'requests' should be removed immediately, and Nick should be topic banned(at the very least) for this disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see any immediate bad faith here - follow the discussion at Jimbo's page (linked at top) to show that some did say that deletion policy does suggest sometimes remove of contentious articles is an appropriate action, and Nick was following through on that. And as not yet under any GG sanctions, it's hard to assume that this was a intentionally malicious action but one Nick felt would remove disruption from WP. Obviously I personally don't agree with removal but I don't read anything purposely malicious in the AFD nom here. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban Nick made a good faith, if incredibly ill-informed, attempt to solve the dramafest that is Gamergate. He shouldn't be punished for it. This sort of gung-ho agressive attitude, will only serve to deter experienced and knowledgeable editors from helping in this quagmire of a topic area. Brustopher (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am categorically against topic bans and the like in all but the most dire circumstances. That being said, anyone who cares to have a look at Talk:Zoe Quinn will see that NickCT and I had a long and (I thought) civil discussion on the merits of deleting the page per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that amounts to bad faith, but I do not believe that the thought of deleting these articles came from the discussion on Mr. Wales' talk page. I don't think any admin action is required, but it's something to take in to account. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dumuzid: - For the record, I think civil and long are good descriptions of that conversation. ;-p NickCT (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep WP:SNOW, especially for Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu. OP cites no policy to warrant their removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep with a few comments. I would say that Brianna Wu is closest to a BLP1E case, as she had no coverage prior to GG and essentially all of her initial coverage was related to that. But my guess is there's enough coverage of other things she's said and done in the interim that her article would pass WP:GNG on its own now. I could possibly see Depression Quest getting merged to Zoe Quinn, but she herself has gotten plenty of coverage, a good amount before GamerGate ever happened, specifically for that game, as well as some controversy around a game jam event that happened in early 2014. And if that were the case, a merge discussion could take place outside of AFD. In fact, I'd say starting with potential merge discussions would have been more fruitful and perceived as less of an attack. —Torchiest talkedits 16:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Torchiest: - re " I'd say starting with potential merge discussions" - Perhaps.... NickCT (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - The idea that "the way to solve the GamerGate mess is to delete everything but one article on the GamerGate mess" has been around. Now it has been tried in practice. Clearly meets GNG, which is what we go by at AfD rather than holding normative debates about what should and what should not ideally exist. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Articles are kept or deleted because of their notability and other relevant content policies and guidelines, not because of drama within Wikipedia. Navelgazing would be writing articles about "the Wikipedia Gamergate drama" or similar, but these are real-world topics. At a glance, all these articles cover their subjects much beyond their involvement, if any, in Gamergate, so BLP1E is not an issue, and no argument is made that these topics fail basic notability.

    As an aside: I created the initial version of Brianna Wu after reading an article about her and deciding she sounded like an interesting figure; I don't remember whether Gamergate was already a thing at the time. For some reason, all versions prior to 22 October 2014‎ appear to have been suppressed, so I can't check. Can somebody with oversight access tell me why? I'm reasonably sure at least my initial version was BLP-compliant.  Sandstein  16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the presumably un-oversighted version. I regret to inform you that, for you, "Brianna Wu" was not notable until "GamerGate" was notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
What's interesting for Wu (probably for Quinn too), is that before GG existed, she still was a founder of a studio with a notable game, but we would have likely never had a detailed article on her just because of that fact (she'd be a redirect to the studio if not to the game). But you add in GG, and then we got more articles on her non-GG parts of her career to be able to expand that out as well as discuss briefly her role in the event of note. The GG situation may have brought the attention but the attention is now there to justify an article on her. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sandstein: - Do you recall which article you'd read? NickCT (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment
These are all reasonable candidates for deletion. I prefer to see them kept, even though they may be marginal, because it seems to me that they reduce drama. A well attested fact about Depression Quest (arguably the most non-notable entity here), probably belongs in the article, whereas in GamerGate (controversy) cries of WP:UNDUE would doubtless ring throughout the land.
There may be some mileage in merging Depression Quest => Zoe Quinn and merging Frederick Brennen => 8Chan. I don't think we can merge Brianna Wu to Revolution 60, but I wouldn't oppose it.
Quiz question What well known piece of GamerGate vernacular might be used to support deletion?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment - Well, it looks pretty hopeless at we're going to reach consensus for a delete for any of the articles. I plan to withdraw within the next couple hours unless there is a significant change in the responses being posted. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Swarm 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rescue![edit]

Rescue! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Rescue!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile merge/redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 22:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. After searching, I was unable to locate sources that demonstrate notability; fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 23:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage of this 1990s shareware game.Dialectric (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin Casino 4U[edit]

Bitcoin Casino 4U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Bitcoin Casino 4U" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable online casino. Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable, no independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with above assessment. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin Casino 365[edit]

Bitcoin Casino 365 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Bitcoin Casino 365" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable online casino. Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Self-promotional material. Non-notable, no independent RSs. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - References given in the article appear to be web pages, but cannot be found on Google. Apart from Wikipedia, 20 unique Google hits. "BitcoinCasino365" gives more hits, but pretty much all of them appear to be advertising the website. There is no hope of this becoming anything more than a promotion. Might even qualify as speedy, but I'm not sure. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with above assessment; self-promotion. Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Heart's Medicine[edit]

Heart's Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Heart's Medicine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Dearth of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. (?) Only review is from Gamezebo. Jayisgames can't be used to prove notability. Rest of the refs are unreliable. Little else in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. No viable redirect options. – czar 06:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as my research came up with no results. Anarchyte 10:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete article seems to have been created to promote the game for the (potential) upcoming release of Season 2. Wikipedia is neither a platform for PROMOTION nor a CRYSTALBALL. As a note, I've removed the Season 2 speculation from the page. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ognian Gueorguiev[edit]

Ognian Gueorguiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Ognian Gueorguiev" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. He is not mentioned in another article so as to warrant a redirect. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·E·C) 03:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having significant, reliable, independent coverage in sources (that I can find). There are a bunch of hits from list/tables and non-independent venues. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Date Ariane[edit]

Date Ariane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Date Ariane" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Such a "sensation" that it had next to no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no hits in a tech website search. Article topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) No potential redirect targets. – czar 02:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, unless someone can provide more sources than those present in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking siginficant RS coverage. Despite the professional sounding name, The New York Review of Video Games is a student blog. The Vice ref is a brief incidental mention in a larger article on similar games. A search turned up no further significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Swarm 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Putson[edit]

Anthony Putson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Anthony Putson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, only PR. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not finding any significant coverage, only saw one article (an interview) approaching RS in a Google search, and don't think that cuts it. North of Eden (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Stunt Rally (video game)[edit]

Stunt Rally (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "Stunt Rally (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Sourced almost exclusively to unreliable sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 05:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Neowiz Games. Clear consensus that the subject is not notable. There was an even split concerning the redirect, but no argument was offered against one, and redirects are cheap. Did not delete the underlying article history as that is not required to effect this close, and may be of some use later should the subject attain notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

S4 League[edit]

S4 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "S4 League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find any reliable, third-party published sources. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches return zero results. Other Google searches return the usual unreliable sites, spam sites, forums, and press releases. The single third-party source in the article is a press release, not a reliable source suggesting notability. Woodroar (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: press releases after press releases with no actual coverage. Esquivalience t 04:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Has some coverage[58][59] but no reviews and not enough to write a full article. – czar 04:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Neowiz Games as a useful redirect term. Didn't see that it existed. – czar 16:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Had tagged this with notability guidelines before waiting for a more experienced video game editor. Feel confident this isn't notable enough now. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Ketchapp. - Anarchyte please infuture be WP:BOLD & redirect yourself - I could understand if it was a huge article and you had problematic editors but it was a small article with barely any editors....It didn't need to come here. (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 00:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ZigZag (2015 video game)[edit]

ZigZag (2015 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(‹See Tfm› Find sources: "ZigZag (2015 video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Does not prove notability. There are no references. Anarchyte 06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ketchapp and speedy close. @Anarchyte, why didn't you just redirect to the developer's page before coming to AfD? – czar 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ketchapp; software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Developer appears notable and is a reasonable redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.