Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions[edit]

David McGarry[edit]

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

An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Video games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stumble Guys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the general notability guidelines, with no critic reviews in sight and limited sourcing on the game in general. I managed to find one "review" from Pure Xbox [1], but I don't think that is enough to save this article. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Review from Multiplayer.it, reliable source per WP:VG/RS, though not enough to pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article seems pretty rushed, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I did notice the Pure Xbox review, and the Multiplayer.it review, but does not seem notable. The article needs to be made better. I suggest the article creator takes the article to draftspace, and works on it a little more, as right now, the article is not ready for mainspace. More reliable sources should help a lot. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sources from Pocket Gamer and Video Games Chronicle I found from the previous deletion discussion. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two reliable reviews from Multiplayer.it and Pure Xbox, which, along with other significant coverage articles — other than the ones already presented here, such as VGC, I've also found this Eurogamer source — I think it is enough to meet WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 15:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Looks pretty rushed to me. Recommended this page is put into the draftspace and work on this a bit more. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, This article is a bit undercooked, so let's put it back in the oven. Samoht27 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The Multiplayer.it review to be the only reliable review that provides significant coverage about the game. Many of the other sources listed here are bulletins or updates about commercial performance, such as topping the app charts, which is helpful but not something that would establish notability. The Pure Xbox article is helpful and a reliable source but not strong as a review; the fairly bland positive sentiments paired with the developer's input ("we were advised about during our hands-on session") implies that the writer was not in a position to offer any critical analysis of the game. As stated by others above, this could be made into a notable article but I'm not seeing it from the sources everyone has brought up. Draftifying is an appropriate ATD. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Pesina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. No pre or post-wiki sig coverage. Being on the crew in a lot of video games does not automatically inherit notability. Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, and current Google search results in hardly any in-depth sig coverage. Passings mentions/brief coverage I could find from major pubs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7- do not help passing GNG. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Martial arts. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA[edit]

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

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical, and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [2]). --Mika1h (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mutant[edit]

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

Recent GAN, I declined it due to a lack of strong sourcing, with most of it being trivial mentions and sources not really discussing Super Mutants as a species. I've done a BEFORE and found very little beyond what's here, and after discussing it with the nominator, I've elected to send this to AfD to determine a consensus. Due to a lack of familiarity with Fallout, I'm not really sure as to a good AtD, but in any case, I don't believe this article currently meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment forgot to do this in my nomination, but pinging @Haleth due to their large contributions to the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - not notable independently of the Fallout series. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, why would you delete it entirely. There's other WP:ATD option. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fallout_(series). Multiple editors have suggested redirecting there, but the topic is not covered by that article. Flounder fillet (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention "not notable (qualifier)" demonstrates a poor understanding of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References 2, 6, and 36 are sigcov independent RSes. Even if the notability was borderline here--and I argue that it's fine--this is a really well written fictional element article: exactly what we want to encourage people to write. The fact that it's been dragged to AfD is unfortunate and probably demoralizing. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:VALNET: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming." Personally, I feel the assessment is a bit harsh, but I do recognize that if we're going strictly off of policy, CBR is a source that, while adequate, does not provide weight in this discussion towards notability. As for Ref 6, while TheGamer is reliable, it is one of their pure listicle articles, and only focuses on one individual. Lily is a very separate individual from the concept of Super Mutants as a whole, and thus the source acts as coverage discussing Lily, not Super Mutants. I will also note that this source is practically all plot summary about Lily; there's very little commentary, if at all. I can see the argument for the Eurogamer source, but even then the commentary is less so about the Mutants and more about the retcons involving them. There's little actual commentary on their character here, and thus does not contribute much to actual discussion of them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions or similar. I think Pokelego's analysis is fair; if better sources come up at any point, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions per nomination. There aren't a lot of RSes here, and none of these sources suggest independent notability for this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series) with no prejudice towards recreation if sufficient SIGCOV is found. This is a topic that could be notable at some point, sources may even exist, but right now there is a serious lack of significant coverage demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions doesn't even mention them. It definitely should, but it would be what, a few sentences? Merge is an option, but a new article about the world of the series should be created for that. While there was no Super Mutants in TV series, yet, I think it's just a matter of time. Interesting how articles which notability *rises* are so often nominated. Mithoron (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to keeping this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a WP:CRYSTAL statement. As Zxcvbnm pointed out, if and when more coverage becomes available, there is no prejudice against splitting it back out as an independent article then. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions - I agree with the above arguments for why the subject currently does not meet the threshold to sustain an independent article, but as Flounder fillet pointed out above, it is not actually covered at the proposed section of the Fallout article, and is barely mentioned throughout that article as a whole. So, there should be some Merging going on, not just a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series) or subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, but it can be summarized and merged at the series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout series#Post-War conditions per all the above who said the same thing. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that Fallout (series) as an article has, to date, largely glossed over the appearances of Super Mutants in the franchise is not a reason to delete this article. I do agree with the sentiment that more information included in this article should be included in the overall series article, but it's not something which should be just relegated to Fallout series#Post-War conditions - as the creation of Super Mutants in Vaults is essential to the narrative of the first game, and a significant element of Fallout 3 and 76. To that end, I have just added to the mention of mutation experiments in Fallout series#Vaults. I think if this article is kept there is still going to be necessary additions to Fallout (series). SCSQ3 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see your argument here. We shouldn't merge this because there isn't info there? That's what a merge is for. In any case, in-series importance does not dictate the existence of a separate article. If it did, we'd have articles on a lot of subjects who have been determined to be non-notable at this point in time, such as King Dedede and Diddy Kong. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Trainer[edit]

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

Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability. Was already dePRODded in 2010. Waxworker (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the subject of arcade games, the game really has a popularity. It fulfills the notability. Being an old article, may have been based on a reference for so long, its mention is spot on in search and other places. I have improved the article. Ontor22 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ontor22: - I've removed the sources you added - Hard Drive is a satire website similar to The Onion, and the article was a joke. GameFAQs is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source and unreliable per WP:VG/RS. The reliability of the Arcade Club database is unclear to me, but it isn't substantial coverage regardless. Waxworker (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Invader[edit]

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

Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space Invaders video games as preferred WP:ATD. Sorry, I included the wrong link in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having previously worked on getting both Space Invaders and List of Space Invaders video games to featured status, I can say that I did not come across this game in my research. To be fair, I wasn't searching for specific clones, but I would imagine that even a passing mention would have popped up if it was a little notable. As the list is intended only for official Space Invaders games, I don't think merging a clone into the list would be the right move. We'd still have to prove notability for inclusion because there were many clones and we can't make a unsourced catalog of clone games. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: From jp-wiki and elsewhere, company appears to have also been written "Technon/Teknon" & "Kogyu" or "テクノンコウギョウ" or "テクノン工業". Game also written "ビーム・インベーダー". It is mentioned at [3] & [4], but those are both recent. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also fall under WP:NOTINHERITED, and it's not worthy of merging with Space Invaders either. When I worked on Space Harrier many years ago I learned about multiple clones of the game that were produced, and none of them stood on their own merits. The same applies in this instance. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth[edit]

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

This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER and WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

older ≠ wiser 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also support redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote per longterm significance if that would allow for a consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth although it is presented in the guise of discussing deletion of a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page. As disambiguation is necessary, whether with through hatnotes or a disambiguation page, this page cannot be deleted until there is consensus to move established with a transparent and properly listed MOVE discussion (not through a backdoor AfD). And the watchers of Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also OK with redirecting this to Sephirot with a hatnote to the Final Fantasy character. However, that same redirect was previously changed to a disambiguation page in this discussion. Pinging the participants: Steel1943, Dream Focus, Havradim. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a hatnote, and it would make sense to have one. Basically saying "delete per WP:ONEOTHER." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These delete arguments do not address the WP:SURPRISE issue when people - actually most searchers - are looking for a religious term and land on a Final Fantasy character. While the DAB page may not technically be required, WP:ONEOTHER is specifically for when a primary topic exists. The FF character is in no way a primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Sephirot is the usual English transliteration in Jewish Kabbalah, Sephiroth is the most common transliteration in Hermetic Qabalah for the same topic. Therefore a dab page should be maintained. Alternatively, redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote for the FF character. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should Sefirot be deemed the primary topic, I'm fine with Sefirot instead being the primary redirect. However, the article should have a hatnote leading to the video game character given the similar titles. In any case, the disambig page is unnecessary given this can just be handled by hatnotes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sephiroth to Sefirot and add a hatnote to game character. Sefirot is the primary topic per WP:PT2 due to "long-term significance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth. I feel like this isn't a Mario situation, where the character is so big that they get priority over the name. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In order to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Redirecting this to Sefirot because it doesn't seem that likely of a spelling mistake, and the current two disambiguation targets get around the same # of views. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it's not a spelling error. I still think Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) should be moved here, and a hatnote can be added for Sefirot. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what first comes to mind, but about what is correct in policy. Moving the page clearly isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot, add a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), I don't think Sephiroth would get priority over the name due to Sefirot having significantly more long term significance than the character.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024
Redirect per above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, straight-up "delete" is not applicable here since the title refers to at least one existent subject. (Otherwise, I do not have an opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), per Samoht27 and MKsLifeInANutshell. This is the only fully policy-compliant option, as there is a clear primary topic of this WP:TWODABS situation. BD2412 T 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear)[edit]

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [5] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD. I found a GameRant article [6] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, half a source. But my !vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [12] [13] [14] [15] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my !vote:

Source analysis by Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger	Plot WP:SUMMARY/WP:ROUTINE. N
[16]	Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise. ?
Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time	WP:BLOG N
Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed	Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y
La legendaria soldado The Boss]	Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y
The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games	Again MarySue could be unreliable. Seems more like WP:ROUTINE anyways.N
The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size	WP:BLOG N
Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad	Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y
The 25 most inspirational female characters in games	WP:ROUTINE N

Not that it matters to affecting your !vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silfade[edit]

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

In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get zero results looking up "silfade". Looking up creator SmokingWOLF, I get two (a 4gamer piece and an interview with Famitsu. Using Google Translate, I see the different spelling 'sylphide'. Again, zero results (except results to the unrelated ballet La Sylphide). Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is probably not notable, but please note that such a search really needs to be perfomed in Japanese (シルフェイド) in order to determine whether there are sufficient sources (WP:BEFORE); it's not the case that there are no hits when searching in Japanese. The Famitsu link you gave above calls this the maker's most important work. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Automation-media.com, forest.watch.impress.co.jp IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters[edit]

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

While I'm a big fan of Fate/Grand Order as a game, I feel this list is a behemoth that ultimately fails notability on its own, and has become more of a cruft dragon that doesn't really explain why these characters are important. The bigger issue though is a notability one: while Fate itself definitely has reactions, the harder argument is that FGO's characters on their own do in an overarching way that makes it work for WP:N or WP:LISTN.

Even reception for Mash and Ritsuka would be more for them, and that could be worked into the parent game article (and as someone that tried to do a writeup on Mash, I'm not confident the sources are there) Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect The article is massive with no substance, cites all of ONE source (Anime News Network), and it might as well be written in Martian for people like me who know nothing about the games. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing my vote to redirect. Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP, since it does have somewhere to be redirected to, which is the main Fate/Grand Order article. While I find WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out. Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case. MoonJet (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per MoonJet - despite character lists being valid spin-offs, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and there has to be something to go on to show notability. As it is, people are better served by checking the TVTropes character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing more to say. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is lot of plot summary fancruft, I think this passes NLIST. Aside of numerous game guides/tier lists and such that one can easily find, here are some more analytical sources. Granted, some are not great (listiclis is common here), but IMHO likely sufficient for keeping this as a stand-alone list. Here's a list of best sources I found - I think it gets stronger near the end :P 1) TheGamer 2020 - not a listicle: "Fate/Grand Order: My Servants Have My Back" 2) ScreenRant 2020 listicle - but I think it counts for NLIST: "Fate/Grand Order's Weirdest Real-Life Historical Figures" 3) TheGamer 2020 - article about a specific minor character How Lobo Broke (Then Fixed) My Heart In Fate/Grand Order" 4) GameRant 2023 listicle "Fate Grand Order: Best 5-Star Servants In The Game" 5) ScreenRant 2022 listicle "Fate/Grand Order: The Top 10 Servants Coming to English, Ranked" 5) CBR 2020 listicle (overalps with TV show but IMHO still relevant) "Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia: Character Guide To Every Servant" 6) academic (if likely low tier journal) article profiling another FGO minor character: Baihaqi, Iqbal, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad, and Dana Waskita. "Adaptation of historical figures into mobile game characters (case study: Hijikata Toshizo from Fate/Grand Order)." Journal of Games, Game Art, and Gamification 7, no. 2 (2022): 21-28. 7) another academic article this time covering multiple characters Tomotani, João V., and Rodrigo Brincalepe Salvador. "Testing the Astolfo Effect on newly-released servants in Fate/Grand Order." (2022). 8) again, an academic study of one of the characters Yosugandi, Evan Marchel, and Hendra Kaprisma. "Historical figures in “Fate/Grand Order”: adapting Anastasia Romanova." RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism 28, no. 4 (2023): 712-723. 9) there are various more or less SIGCOV-meeting discussions of FGO characters in a number of other academic works, I'll just leave two examples: academic book chapter on Community-based history learning: Fate/Grand Order's Online Fan Networks and an academic article Informal Strategies for Learning History in Japanese Mass Media Visual Culture: A Case Study of the Mobile Game Fate/Grand Order. PS. Last thought: this list is linked from Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia which otherwise might need its own list. Even more relevant is Fate/Grand Order: Final Singularity-Grand Temple of Time: Solomon which features brief appearances of many characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping participants so you can review my argument/sources: @Beemer69 @Greenish Pickle! @Kung Fu Man @MoonJet @Traumnovelle @Wcquidditch @Zxcvbnm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some of these may work for individual character articles, but a bigger issue is that a lot of these are either about the game or the Fate franchise itself. Like the Astolfo article isn't commentary about the characters, but how introducing a new character into Fate as a series often supercedes search results for the real world counterpart (the Astolfo effect as it were, which is due to a character that originated from *another* Fate work). As useful as a lot of these can be for specific character, even I'm wary about the idea on building a list up on primarily valnet lists Piotrus...and I'm usually in favor of using Valnet as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/expand per Piotrus. When someone who often advances a TNT argument on fictional topics thinks this is salvageable, we should listen. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reminds me of the case with the deletion request regarding the List of Paper Mario characters article in where while the initial article seems to be that of an unnoteworthy subject, references are clearly evident with Piotrus but that this article could use a rewrite in order to comply with notability standards as it's in a rough state as of writing this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is long. I'll give the creator of it that. But it lacks sources. I agree with the nom as the main source is Anime News Network. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like a split consensus between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Keep. LISTN specifically sets out lists where each individual member might not be notable, but the collective as a whole is notable, as a valid case. I think that personally, FGO should be banned or the like (& other gacha), but it grudgingly is a big deal with zillions of dollars flowing around. Sourcing is certainly tricky due to the game's most devoted fanbase being in Japan, but I have no doubt that a reception-of-the-FGO characters section can be written, albeit possibly with Japanese sources in addition to the ones linked by Piotrus above. (Of course, I agree that part of the issue is that the reception is tied up across appearances across the franchise, so maybe there needs to be "Characters of Fate" article... but it seems the existing style is separate articles per work, since stay/night has its own separate characters article. And this article is already very long, and would get longer if it was turned into "Characters of Fate". Oh well.). SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources uncovered here since my initial redirect vote, I'm in favor of keeping this. Though, it does need a lot of clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs both a "Design" chapter and a "Reception" chapter to better demonstrate notability. From the discussion above, I believe there are plenty of sources for these chapters. Supergrey1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Brothers[edit]

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on the article are arcade database listings, KLOV is reliable per WP:VG/RS while Arcade History is unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See vgmrips.net for the Japanese company East Technology. See YouTube for a 33-minute video of the arcade game.2603:6011:8241:6E00:1CBC:91A:F597:2B20 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Engine[edit]

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

Video game engine used in a handful of games circa 2003. No actual coverage whatsoever. My redirect was correctly undone as it is not mentioned in the target article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is very cut and dry – I found nothing from reliable sources about the subject itself and I think anything that is found could easily be incorporated into the Blitzkrieg video game article that this engine seems to have been created for. Nothing in book searches as well (where you'll commonly find coverage of this kind of thing). Nomader (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nival (company)#Technology as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again or delete: The features description is hardly encyclopedic and the one source is an interview. IgelRM (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClanLib[edit]

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

Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG, and my BEFORE did not find anything useful (WP:SIGCOV-compliant). Can anyone save this? Otherwise we can consider a redirect target, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Piotrus:, are you asserting that what the article purports to be full chapters in two different game programming books doesn't amount to SIGCOV? I don't have access to or know these sources, so maybe you know something not obvious from the description here. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 I did not realize the second one is a book (dead link, all refs are malformatted and don't suggest they are books). The third one does link to a book page but I could not verify the contents (it is just publisher page). I also remain unconvinced that coverage in how-to/textbooks is sufficient to prove something is notable, unless those books are widely used. There is a lot of low quality spammy how-to/textbooks in the computer sciences field, particularly now in the AI days (although those works are likely old enough to at least not be AI creations). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Game Programming with Python, Lua, and Ruby" does indeed have a chapter on it, although I can't access the full text, unsure about the other one. There seems to be some decent sources in Google Books and some in Scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer Is the publisher (Premier Press)? Their website suggests they do print-on-demand stuff, so self-publishing. See [17] or Our work helps you achieve your marketing goals.. Assuming this is the right company, this one does a lot of non-book gadget printing?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Amazon lists pub as Course Technology PTR, a subsiduary of Cengage Group. Course Technology PTR has Premier Press as an imprint. While I'm fairly confident who the publisher is, I can't say whether or not there's editorial control. @Piotrus I suspect you have an unrelated Premier Press website there, by the looks of it they're not in educational publishing. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some stuff I found if you'd like to look at it and decide upon its reliability. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: List of games built with ClanLib: https://web.archive.org/web/20060626025824/http://www.clanlib.org/games.html - all of them seems to be hobby projects or even learning projects. I doubt that any of that on it's own would have Wikipedia article. Quickly looking at the list I do not see anything commercial or noteworthy. Pbm (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would personally delete it. Looking for useful game engines and this page wasted my time. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the website perhaps from its entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines since that's how I ended up here. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)[edit]

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game): This is the best work he has done per article and in other to help backlog, WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place above as comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems fine to merge the career section with Paranoia (role-playing game), less the last sentence. Checked the ref of last sentence and added it to designers on Marvel_Universe_Roleplaying_Game. Rolmops23 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep The Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. source meets notability per WP:N, being reliable and in period. If it was added to the page, there is grounds to cancel the request for deletion. Merge also OK if consensus prefers. Rolmops23 (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions[edit]