Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WPVG icon 2016.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
  Web archive talk
  Top video games talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges

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:
  1. 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, 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.
  2. 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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive.
Purge page cache watch

See also Games-related deletions.


Video games-related deletions[edit]

Press X To Not Die (video game)[edit]

Press X To Not Die (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Press X To Not Die (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable video game. The single source that was added while this article was deprodded is not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search turns up a few hits, but they're mostly about the meme. The Steam link proves that it exists, but we'd need reviews to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Erika Lenhart[edit]

Erika Lenhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Erika Lenhart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I'm not seeing much for coverage. Was active in the 2000s. She has a starring role in 5 cm, I's, and Aika R-16/Zero, and possibly main in Haibane, but none of those are real standout roles in the anime industry. Only one anime convention appearance. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is nothing more than an IMDB retread. — Wyliepedia 05:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Team NoA[edit]

Team NoA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Team NoA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

one of the top Counter-Strike clans for a few years, but there doesn't seem to be the coverage in reliable sources to be included on Wikipedia Prisencolin (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Brianna Knickerbocker[edit]

Brianna Knickerbocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brianna Knickerbocker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) or at least enough to build a full article. No suitable merge/redirect targets. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:BLP and Wikipedia:V. I can't find any substantial information about this person on reliable sites. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Can't find very many reliable sources. —MRD2014 T C 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. About the only stuff I can find is cast announcements and a video interview for Yuki Yuna where she is with the rest of that cast. No special appearances at multiple anime conventions. Why did the creator of this article push it out of draft? It would have been fine there as a chance to find decent sources. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sander Cohen[edit]

Sander Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sander Cohen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There are exceedingly few elements within the fictional Bioshock universe that are notable enough for their own articles (which is not to say that the games themselves are not notable); Sander Cohen is not one of them.

Furthermore, many of the sources have either link rotted away or he is only mentioned tangentially in some other context (i.e. one of them is an interview with a game designer where he briefly mentions Sander Cohen in a single question about which character he enjoyed designing the most, another is a discussion about choosing voice actors for the game).

This article has been deleted once before for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability policy, so I am relisting it for deletion since I feel that it still doesn't meet inclusion guidelines. GSMR (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete- I recently replayed this classic game and, in-game, Sander Cohen is a moderately important boss/questmaster who you meet around half-way mark. Not worthwhile dedicating an entire article to, not without a large amount of compelling sourcing. And I am not seeing that here. Reyk YO! 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of characters in the BioShock series. While there certainly is some coverage, I rather see one decent section on a character, than a mediocre article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a worthwhile search term, and merge as necessary. This is actually a great example of a character mentioned in multiple "top lists" and even called out by name in reviews, but altogether that isn't the sourcing that proves independent notability. czar 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 20:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep References 6,7,8,10,11 in the current article demonstrate multiple instances of significant, independent, RS coverage. Czar's characterization of these sources is accurate, but his conclusion is not. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jclemens. I also note that there are a few potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. His part in the game may be small (I played it, and he isn't really ringing a bell with me...) but he's clearly attracted some critical and academic attention. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect as I'm still not seeing enough, even despite the listed sources, to suggest comfortably better thus I go with this. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

ClanBase EuroCup[edit]

ClanBase EuroCup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ClanBase EuroCup" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

doesn't seem pass WP:NORG or appear in many reliable sources Prisencolin (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

European Gaming League[edit]

European Gaming League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "European Gaming League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

mentioned in a few sources but the overall notability of this organization is questionable WP:NORG Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Paradigm (video game)[edit]

Paradigm (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paradigm (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

PROD removed with the basis that there's coverage for crowdfunding which is not actually convincing for notability and also then a "2016 release"; all of this is still not a convincing objection to my now-remoced PROD. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The sources listed - IGN, Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Engadget - are good, but I'm not sure if it is enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is a WP:TOOSOON situation? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The sources are good, but probably a bit below what is required for an unreleased game. Second choice is to draft space/userfy it and wait until release and see if it still gets coverage. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Werther Quest[edit]

Werther Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Werther Quest" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable video game that has 0 results when using the WP:VG/S Custom Search. I can't find anything that proves notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise[edit]

Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unnotable video game released this in 2016, so it might be too soon for an article on this video game. Using the custom source search for video games brings up 0 results for "Clash of Queens: Dragons Rise" and there is no Metacritic page. I could find no proper coverage for this subject. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Cubage (video game)[edit]

Cubage (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cubage (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantive coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep - got reviews, claims in article backed up. (Which is why I saved it from PROD.) But pretty marginal - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what sources you're referencing. GamerBytes only existed for several months and there is no archived version of the website. XNPlay and WorthThePoints are patently unreliable—no editorial hallmarks. And Ars Technica is a passing mention. There is literally no extant coverage of this game. czar 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete – Fails WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Azure Striker Gunvolt 2[edit]

Azure Striker Gunvolt 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Azure Striker Gunvolt 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

See Wikipedia:Junk Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Deletion doesn't really make sense to me. USGamer does a pretty detailed article on it, but most sources are on the briefer side, like Game Informer and IGN. I'm leaning towards redirecting for now, since the article has almost zero content, but spinning out to its own article as soon as an actual article is actually written. If its not notable yet, it certainly will be once the reviews start coming in. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's got a publisher and is a sequel to an existing release, which but the article is sub-stub quality. It might be premature, but I see no reason to delete it just to recreate the article when it releases. Jergling (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
At most this needs to be redirected to the sequel section of the article for the original game.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
See Notability (video games) for my reasoning. If the original gets a full article, the sequel generally should too. Jergling (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

::::I agree with that reasoning.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Misread that, I initially thought they were suggesting that the info from from this article should be put in the first game's article not that the existence of that article meant that this should have one automatically.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Azure_Striker_Gunvolt#Sequel. This is an open and shut case. If we don't have a preponderance of sources, and we have an obvious section to hold the content, it should incubate there. I haven't seen that vg "notability" essay in years—I wouldn't cite it for anything. Does this have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) —not significantly, so merge it. czar 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Akiiro Renka[edit]

Akiiro Renka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Akiiro Renka" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Japanese visual novel that shows no notability. Was not made into an anime so no idea what it is doing over in WP:ANIME. No references or citations. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Purple software. Someone may see this game online or at a convention, so I feel it could be a search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

List of MySims characters[edit]

List of MySims characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of MySims characters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG, a long, long list of trivial video game characters fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. No notability, no sources to be found. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom. Since WP:VGSCOPE is a link within MOS:VG, it is a guideline on how to curate acknowledged encyclopedic content, and therefore no legitimate reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey @Jclemens:, I have to ask: why exactly are you voting keep? Because you're not saying why it should stay. I said it fails WP:GNG and didn't respond to that, which, you know, is a pretty important guideline. Just like in this deletion discussion and that one (which were both deleted) you did claim that because I'm saying it fails a guideline that it shouldn't be deleted. On June 29, I asked you to point to the guideline or essay that says "Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic", which I still haven't seen. So I'm wondering, why are you voting keep? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Because you have advanced no legitimate argument for deletion, or, at best, a self-contradictory one. Every time any editor argues that a style guideline is a legitimate reason for deleting an article, every editor who understands the difference should oppose it on principle. Strike your references to WP:VGSCOPE entirely, rest your case on the GNG, and the problem goes away. Whether or not any individual article is kept or not is not near as important as never letting an MOS mention go unopposed in any deletion discussion. If you don't understand that MOS'es only apply to content that is kept in the encyclopedia, then I don't particularly owe you either a history or a logic lesson, but suffice it to say that there have been plenty of cantankerous folks who have tried to apply the MOS in the most Procrustean manners imaginable, such that any AfD referring to an MOS as support for deletion is clearly more harmful than letting the content in question stay. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Like I said in the other discussion, WP:VGSCOPE says "Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics". While I'm always up for a history lesson, you could just point me to the relevant guideline that says that a content policy guideline shouldn't be cited in a deletion discussion. WP:PGL? WP:AADD? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Manual of style pages are not content inclusion/exclusion guidelines, they're content presentation guidelines. WP:UGLY applies to MOS-based deletion reasons. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps discuss merging notable entries into their parent game pages on talk pages. A quick search shows that some of these characters do get coverage (e.g. King Roland [1] and Morcubus [2]). Jclemens is right in that VGSCOPE does not offer advice on the wholesale deletion of pages, just the removal of cruft from existing articles. The MySims games is part of a major franchise, has several entries, all with reviews of which some do talk about specific characters, so it's not clear that this has to go. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:UGLY does not mention anything about guidelines. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." It does not. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED, a notable franchise does not automatically mean the characters are too. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I never brought up UGLY, so I'll respond to the points relevant to my !vote. VGSCOPE 6 is what should be in articles, not what should be articles. Failing it does not in of itself mean it should be deleted, since it could still pass notability guidelines as a stand alone list. As I showed in my !vote, some of the characters do get coverage in reliable sources, so per our deletion policy, alternatives to deletion such as merging should be conidered before wholesale deletion. NOTINHERITED wouldn't apply in this case because some of the list members do get verifiable coverage from RS. If most of the other characters get no coverage, my preference would be to merge the ones with coverage to their individual game pages and then have this page as a redirect to the main MySims page to preserve history.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I think coverage is a stretch, Patar knight. In the IGN piece it is a developer explaining their own game and mentions King Roland a couple of times, while the review says "after creating a character, players may jump into the story mode, taking players head on with the main villain, Morcubus. Morcubus runs a company known as MorcuCorp, who has literally taken over the skies". That being said, I'm not opposed to redirecting or merging it into a small section of characters (as long as it is sourced, of course ;-)). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A developer talking in an interview with a reliable source about a character in which three paragraphs (2 on the 2nd page, 1 on the 3rd page) are devoted to a character or even a couple of sentences from a review is significantly better than the norm for character descriptions on Wikipedia (completely uncited, "this is correct as shown in the title work" stuff). Redirecting this to the original game after all mergers wouldn't be a problem, but these characters come from several different games in the MySims series, so any character with coverage would have to be listed under their individual game. That seems like something to be done at the talk page instead of at AfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar:, I noticed this discussion didn't pop up at WP:VG/AA. You're more articulate than I am when it comes to this, maybe you can take a look at it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It's because the talk page wasn't tagged for the project--fixed czar 05:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The claims to coverage above are not credible. To review, this is an 88 kB article with nary a single source. That's 88 kB of primary source cruft when we look to split at 50 kB. If you merge to the main series or individual games articles, we'll be forced to redirect to preserve attribution, but there is otherwise nothing here worth saving. There is nothing exceptional in the sources to warrant a separate treatment of the characters in this series. They can be appropriately handled in their parent articles' Character sections and only split out summary style if/when necessary. Arguing for keeping this schlock based on passing mentions in sources primarily about other parts of the series is out of order. czar 23:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per other "keep" rationales above. If not keep, then at least redirect. Please just don't delete it. The MySims article is an acceptable target, where any coverage these characters get can be covered. Deletion should be a last resort kind of thing, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dejobaan Games[edit]

Dejobaan Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dejobaan Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Developer of notable video games fails WP:GNG; their game is notable, but notability is not inherited. On the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, very little results discuss the studio; not enough to merit its own article. Redirect to AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject of independent reliable coverage.[3][4][5] Video games developer notability would be better aligned with WP:MUSIC where a degree of notability is inherited - redirecting the creator of multiple independently notable works to a single notable work is not helpful, you're making a bad assumption on behalf of the reader. Just a bare bones list of games, a glorified disambiguation page would be more useful for a reader searching for the subject. - hahnchen 08:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Hahnchen:, sorry for my late reply. I did notice those results too, but do you think that those mean Dejobaan Games meets WP:GNG? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - splitting into multiple articles for notable games is inefficient and this is a game developer with 17 titles. Agree with the findings of Hahnchen above.Tarinth (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 00:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Chess Giants[edit]

Chess Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chess Giants" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I only found websites that either provide a download link for the game, or provide basic information about the software itself. References and sources providing secondary coverage about the article subject in-depth does not appear to exist at all, and the subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage -- or enough sources to support the creation of an article without the use of original research (required for passing GNG). Notability guidelines aside, the article also appears to be written like an advertisement (although that shouldn't directly assert the notability of the subject). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I am the author of this page, and this is my first edit on Wikipedia. Considering web notoriety alone, I understand very well that you think it can be deleted. Two things made me think it deserved a page: the fact that the List of chess software page mentions many poor, obscure and/or dead chess software, did make me think Chess Giants (which I use) deserved to be in this list. Also, the community of serious chess players probably less often read or write blogs than other geeks (chess isn't usually a high-tech subject). Also, it isn't written as an advertisement more than the Chess Titans page, of which I explicitly borrowed the style and layout (mostly because I'm unused to wikipedia text formatting). Yet I borrowed terms from this page precisely to avoid my text being misinterpreted as an advertisement, now I feel wrong of having done so. -- Montegozzi 2016-07-14 15:32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montegozzi (talkcontribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete much of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE, in addition to the reasons described above. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Champion. for (;;) (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Shigefumi Hino[edit]

Shigefumi Hino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shigefumi Hino" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Neutral, procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 30#Sigehumi Hino for context. BDD (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dwayne Powers[edit]

Dwayne Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dwayne Powers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Even fictional characters must be shown to be notable. I could find no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Powers. Simply redirecting doesn't help, as Nancy Drew#Video games does not include a section on characters. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following Nancy Drew-related pages because they also fail WP:GNG:

Penvellyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jane Penvellyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sally McDonald (Nancy Drew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Helen Archer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eloise Drew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannah Gruen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beatrice Hotchkiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bess Marvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prudence Rutherford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Togo (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vivian Burnett Whitmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Not opposed to a merge, theoretically, but that would require some indication that the "minor Nancy Drew characters" have some notability unto themselves, with articles about them individually or as a group but not enough to warrant separate articles. As far as I can tell, these pages are just Wikia-style repositories of in-universe primary sourced info, so they should be either transwikied to Wikia or just outright deleted. czar 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Without proper sources to establish notability, there is no need for excessive plot information. Any pages where they are mentioned can likely cover all relevant details without needing for them to be merged anywhere. TTN (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reformulate this AFD on a character-by-character basis. Alternately, Keep Bess Marvin, create List of minor Nancy Drew characters that includes Hannah Gruen and may or may not include others on the list. But, at a minimum, please do separate AFDs for Bess Marvin and Hannah Gruen, because if anyone who knows anything about the issue is a Wikipedian who skims through the AFD lists, shoehorning these far-more-notable characters in under the principal title of a nobody without a crossreference is going to lead to the wrong result. Combining all these articles into one AFD is cumbersome at best, because the characters, and their coverage, aren't remotely comparable. While I agree some of these characters are crufty, please let me put this into a potentially more familiar pop-culture universe: Combining these articles in one AFD is like combining a proposed cull of South Park articles to include Dougie, Butters Stotch, Randy Marsh, and Kenny McCormick in one AFD discussion—and captioning it only with Dougie!. I assure you I know better than to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is in no way my goal. I'm just trying to give a sense of perspective between the relative indispensability of female second lead Bess Marvin, clearly notable supporting character Hannah Gruen (no less so than Stan's dad in SP), and unheard-of "one[-]time" computer game character Vivian Burnett Whitmore (seriously, who?).
All that being said, I'm going to play the gender card here, for the record if nothing else: if there were more women editing Wikipedia this would never have happened, because plenty of women know the gosh-darned difference between arguable Riot Grrrl subcultural icon Bess Marvin (whose article has gained a number of citations in the past week, I note) and some computer game character who admittedly has nothing to do with anything. This is in NO way intended to be a slight on the editor raising the AFD discussion because that's what a community is for. The articles weren't great and Ubiquity was within rights to call shenanigans; we should all feel comfortable nominating cruft for deletion. It's a slight on the fact that nobody in the world until this week has added citations to establish the notability of at least the character on this list who is a relatively universally known figure in the past and present audience of American girl-focused children's literature, and a slight on the fact that a random 45-year-old lady who's working on a deadline on a real-world project over a holiday weekend is the only person here ranting and raving against across-the-board deletion, because this "fandom" is almost entirely female, when a male-based fandom would have a discussion going out the door and getting written up on blogs for its vehemence. This compares to the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton issue: a significant group of humans find this thoroughly notable, but they're not on Wikipedia to rant about it for whatever reason even though they will be sad if the article isn't there when they go looking for it.
Many thanks to relister Northamerica1000 for not closing this before I had a chance to see it. I will see what I can do to establish notability for, at best, Bess Marvin outside fancruftland, because it exists; I just need to find a couple of hours in the JDL-universe to be able to prove it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the case for separate articles (or AfDs for that matter) based on the added sources, if that's all that exists. There's nothing to stop someone from redirecting Bess Marvin to a place where she is covered (if one exists), but right now there is a difference between being important to a series and/or subculture and having enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant a separate article. czar 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we need different AfDs for some of these pages, because the AfD process is consensus-based, not vote-based. If the consensus is to allow some of the pages to stay, and others to be merged into a list, that's fine. The consensus doesn't have to be delete-all or keep-all. I would be happy to see any of these pages kept if their subjects can be shown to be notable. I initially only nominated pages with no references at all (which is why Carson Drew didn't make my cut), and I see that a number of references have been added to some of the articles since then. I did not withdraw these pages from nomination because I'd like to see some consensus that the references are enough to establish notability, but it seems like this is the case with Bess Marvin.
I'm not sure gender has anything to do with this. I'm a guy, but I read all the Nancy Drew books when I was a kid, and I can distinguish between the importance of someone like Bess Marvin, and someone like Dwayne Powers. But the fact is that none of the nominated articles had any references at the time of their nomination, and this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-wiki. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the way we keep that from happening is by insisting on notability, as demonstrated by appropriate sources. These have still not been provided for the bulk of the nominated articles. ubiquity (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you meant WP:IINFO, but that doesn't really matter, because WP:IINFO lists four specific types of indiscriminate info, and this isn't one of them. In fact, anything that's ever referred to as "*cruft" by any editor is actually more likely to be too discriminate (i.e., bordering on the trivial), rather than indiscriminate. An indiscriminate list might be something like "cat, pencil, travel trailer, Spiro Agnew". Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all and then Redirect however if as needed, as there's still nothing actually convincing and there's not going to be, considering they're simply characters. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete All: I find the nom's argument persuasive, and agree that Wikipedia is not the NancyDrewWiki. Beyond that, I have no idea why this was relisted twice, and relisting it a third time's just absurd; there has been a clear consensus to delete, and only one dissenting voice. (As far as that goes, despite Julietdeltalima's passionate dissent and assertion that not only could the articles she advocates keeping can be sourced, but she would go ahead and do that, the aforementioned articles haven't been touched since her post, a span of time during which she's made about seven hundred edits.) Ravenswing 03:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all, or merge all, if we must. Each is not notable, but collectively they might be. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Splinter Cell characters[edit]

List of Splinter Cell characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Splinter Cell characters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This list of fictional characters is almost entirely primary source video game trivia and altogether not independently notable from the main series. The characters, or anything noteworthy about them for inclusion in an encyclopedia, could be adequately described in a simple Character section based on the current sourcing. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. See ?) czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only five references, with two of them being IMDb and the rest show even less reliablity. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Lists of characters appearing in multiple independently notable works are routinely and properly kept, as the content could be included in any of the main articles, but is instead placed in such lists for SIZE issues, as well as to keep people from creating standalone articles on clearly NN individual characters. See WP:CSC item 2. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Keeping a crufty article that lacks reliable sources just to prevent crufty unsourced spam from proliferating is a terrible reason to do so. Nha Trang Allons! 23:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of poor refferencing, article has a lot of information and a stream of viewers. The article needs to be better made, yes, but that is not reason for deletion. List articles are common and tend to be poorly made compared to others, however, they serve a purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryirregularuser (talkcontribs) 04:14, 8 July 2016
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. You're saying WP:BEFORE, but it fails WP:LISTN. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jclemens. These are characters that appear in a successful multi-media franchise (video games and books based on the games). The individual entries do need some cutting down, but the list as a whole shouldn't be deleted. Many sources with editorial control write about the characters in the series and the development behind them in more detail than would be appropriate to place on the page of any particular game article: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] etc. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Those article are either (1) about Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell), who already has an article, or (2) are routine coverage of the games and their development. Especially the latter links are brief news snippets on game development, and they all fit in the context of their respective articles. czar 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously game reviews will talk primarily about the protagonist of the game series. That doesn't mean that they don't talk about other characters (e.g. Andriy Kobin, who as a key character in one of the demo levels available to reviewers, gets a paragraph or two in most of the game reviews). But all the reviews contains at least a full paragraph on the supporting cast with descriptions, and the various other sources also feature enough information on various characters in the list to be too big to fit in a character section (e.g. my 5th link has a 3:30 video on the character in question, the 6th link to IBT Media has two paragraphs on why certain characters in the game don't fit in with the theme of previous games, the 1st link to Financial Post has two paragraphs on the motivations of President Caldwell), and those above sources are just for the latest game. Searching beyond the latest game gives more mention to characters that have more prominence in those games such as Grim ([14], [15], [16]).
Characters are also discussed over issues such as properly respresenting aging in gaming [17], potentially lacking female characters [18], and being realistic examples of female characters [19]. Sure it's routine coverage for gaming characters, but when reliable sources routinely devote entire paragraphs or entire articles to individual or groups of non-protagonist characters from a series, that passes WP:LISTN. Sources publishing on the game development behind certain characters would also point towards real world notability of those characters. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Your response doesn't preclude my comment that the coverage is largely of the characters in individual games and not implying any larger importance. Our standard is to cover those characters in the context of their game articles (which is why they have Characters sections when necessary) and to cover recurring characters in the main series article (whose Characters section is currently famished) such that we only split out summary style when necessary. As of now, there is not enough coverage or sourced information to warrant a split from the parent section. czar 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Coverage of the cast of Splinter Cell in terms of prominence of female cast, how they were affected by improved graphics technology, and realistic portrayal of females (links 12-14) aren't about individual games and do imply a larger importance. The links/reviews about President Caldwell and Grim cover their actions and roles in two games, and that's only from searching reviews for two games; searching for earlier games (5 not covered by the above searches) and the books (7) would lead to more sources about the recurring characters. I'm perfectly okay with cutting down and moving the information on the characters who actually only appear in individual games to their game article, but it makes no sense for characters that recur throughout the game and book series to have their story split up between potentially up to 14 articles, so this list should be kept as a "Characters of Splinter Cell" article which like Characters of Halo would only focus on the recurring and/or major characters of the series, which would be entirely in line with WP:SUMMARY. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - That there has been a precedent for character lists really doesn't matter. As of late, there has been a precedent for deleting those that fail to establish notability. There is no reason that the information needs to be covered. There is nothing truly essential that will take away from a person's understanding of the series' articles. Absolute core characters can be adequately described in the main articles, summary style or in very succinct lists. I'm not seeing anything relevant glancing at the above links either. TTN (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Got an actual ground there on which you're advocating keep? Nha Trang Allons! 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
He gave an actual ground: "improve sourcing", which implies that he disagrees with the arguments in the nomination statement about notability not being established through available, reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There are 12 independent, reliable sources that cover these characters in varying amounts of depth that is the topic of a thread of discussion at this AfD. All of those, if added, would be improvements to the sourcing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as the sourcing on these characters isn't there. The sources listed above mention one or another of these minor characters in passing, at best, and certainly do not provide enough information for the article content. Adding those sources would be an improvement but they, and others like them, just aren't enough to establish that such a list is needed. Ca2james (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

IfMUD[edit]

IfMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "IfMUD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent (secondary) sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in video game reliable sources and Google Books searches. There are no useful leads, merge targets, or worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm not certain that this topic is non-notable, but if it is, it should probably be merged to XYZZY Award. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having discovered that Montfort's material on ifMUD in Twisty Little Passages was not limited to a "thanks" type mention (clarification of this being new since the AfD's initiation), and considering that Granade's piece may be considered to contribute due to his status as a subject matter expert, I'm inclined to say this one squeaks by the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
But those quotes are quite literally the definition of passing mentions... they do not go into any depth about the subject matter. If anything it shows that there should be a section on competition within interactive fiction or one of its sub-articles. czar 02:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well... no. Montfort's throwaway quote, "I also appreciate the many conversations I have had about interactive fiction topics with friends from an enjoyable and topical online community, ifMUD." is the definition of a passing mention. The other two contain, y'know, information. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Montfort, Nick (2005-04-01). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. The MIT Press. pp. 209–210. ISBN 0-262-63318-3. In general, mini-comps have functioned more like theme issues of a journal than like contests. Another sort of contest was inaugurated in October 1998 by David Cornelson, who had authors on ifMUD (a virtual environment for socializing among those in the IF community) engage in "SpeedIF." Participants created very small IF works within a time limit of one hour (the time limit later became two hours) based on a selection of unusual topics, characters, and items that were volunteered online. The results were uploaded for the "competitors," and anyone else, to enjoy. SpeedIF, occurring irregularly and often decided upon spontaneously, has also become a tradition. Although the focus on competition as a metaphor—even in noncompetitive events—may seem unusual, the many sorts of competitions that have transpired in recent years (including some for interactive fiction in other languages) have had clear benefits for the community. 

It's more about the writing of interactive fiction than anything substantively about how the MUD, but I've already made my point. Adding up everything you were able to cull for this source, we have, at most, a paragraph of miscellaneous information, which isn't what we'd call significant coverage. We really should be looking at making lists/glossaries of MUD topics instead of standalone barebones like this, which end up just being cursory information instead of encyclopedia articles. czar 02:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy (video gamer)[edit]

Happy (video gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Happy (video gamer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

An eSports player, not clear that he passes WP:GNG and has had a notability tag since May. There's a huge pile of sources, but they're all from the same websites and none of them are reliable sources, and most of them are heavily dedicated to niche interest. The vast majority of content in the article is detail about his eSports activities with a ton of red links. He has won a couple of competitions but I am not satisfied that this alone asserts notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As the nomination alludes to, the sourcing is a bit misleading, with most sources not looking to be an WP:RS, or barely mention the subject himself at all - passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Star player of a team that won two CS:GO Majors and reached the final of another, the highest level in the esport. Gets coverage in mainstream sources like L'Express: [20]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
While I don't think this is a bad argument, I note having translated the link you've given that he's one of a team being interviewed and there's no actual write-up about him. This doesn't confer his individual notability, at best it supports that of the team and potentially merging any viable information into that article. KaisaL (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Combined with widely available reports reporting from sources likely ESPN, Daily Dot, and other esports, plus his stature as the captain of a former #1 team in one of the biggest esports in the world would be enough IMHO for it to meet WP:BASIC.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Likely" ESPN etc? In short, you don't actually know one way or another? Sorry, but qualifying sources providing "significant coverage" to the subject (as opposed to casual mentions among a bunch of other guys) is what meets the GNG, not these WP:ROUTINE fleeting mentions, and if you think that L'Express link constitutes qualifying coverage, I urge you to review WP:GNG. Failing anyone providing those sources -- as opposed to blithely assuming they must exist -- make mine Delete. Ravenswing 13:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Just like it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major sports figure in publications covering that sport, it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major e-sports figure in publications covering that e-sport. A Google News search of Happy EnVyUs CSGO gets 636 hits and a Google News search of Happy LDLC CSGO gets 176]. Many of these are in passing, but there is enough in-depth coverage specifically focused on Happy (some examples of which I've added to the article) to pass WP:BASIC, which says that even if there is a lack of sources with deep coverage, extensive non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources can also be used to demonstrate notability.
The point of using the L'Express source is that people tend to vote to delete esports players no matter how much coverage they get from reliable, e-sports coverage, if mainstream sources don't cover them (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD. Since a mainstream source like L'Express chose to interview him, it brings legitemacy to the idea that maybe he should have an article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What brings legitimacy to a person having an article is receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. I really don't give a damn whether someone's name is dropped in the Times of London or the Washington Post -- if he does not receive significant coverage, then the sources do not support the notability of the subject. Period. Ravenswing 03:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
My arguments are also per Ravenswing. When significant reliable coverage dedicated to the individual (not their team) is raised I am happy to consider - hence my shift to a weak delete on Allu's concurrent AFD. KaisaL (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep, coverage in reliable sources as well as mainstream, presumably print sources like L'Express. [21] The L'express article is a interview with Happy and teammate KennyS, and even though it's not entirely about him the fact that it's a mainstream print news magazine means it gives the subject a lot more merit.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A mainstream news article that makes it clear that Happy's play for EnVyUs had made them arguably the best team in the world at the time. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist Music1201 talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There is not enough in sources to prove independent notability outside of a team. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]