Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Game Sack

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

I enjoy the channel a bunch, but this is non-notable stuff. The article reads like a well-compiled collection of trivial mentions and scarcely any of the citations are significant and in-depth enough to provide reliable background about the creators and establish why their channel and its content is notable. Most citations are passing mentions in unrelated articles, like Scott Wozniak citing them in a list of influences or HG101 briefly mentioning a video of theirs exists. There's just not enough about the channel as the primary subject matter of the citations. A quick search for reliable coverage only yields the Vice article on their hiatus. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete. Only SigCov is aforementioned Vice article, and a search only gave me a bunch of football shite. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and not receiving significant coverage. The sources provided seem pretty sketchy, too. --My Pants Metal (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delibird

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

The vast majority of references are low quality or are otherwise only passing and do not substantiate warranting a standalone article. "Top X" lists are low quality slop that games publications put out to keep afloat, and are not sigcov (with their mentions of Delibird often being quite brief). Screen Rant and the TheGamer are Valnet publications that WP:VG/RS considers to not count towards notability due to concerns that they effectively function as content farms. Much of the coverage is within the context of Pokemon Go, which appears to be SEO content designed to gain clicks from people playing the game, and doesn't substantiate that Delibird is notable per se. Some of the other coverage is also effectively "guide" content for video games that Delibird appears in, rather than being about Delibird itself and says little about Delibird itself. The content in these articles is also typically insubstantial. The article should be redirected back to List_of_generation_II_Pokémon. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Modified rationale to add emphasis of the content being insubstantial. Also it is possible some of the details can be added to the list article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has multiple instances of SIGCOV giving coverage to the character and discussing the pros and cons of its design, as well as commentary on how players have found creative uses for it despite its poor competitive use and comparison to a later counterparet (which despite my normal aversion to gameplay commentary in reception, does illustrate how the character is perceived beyond one individual title). Additionally, TheGamer's article is by Stacey Henley, the Editor in Chief who has written for many other publications including The Washintgon Post and IGN, and Valnet sources have been used viably on other articles including Featured Articles. The notion that they "don't count for notability" has been called into question several times, and is often more an issue towards actual content mill content, not editorial content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet_and_the_"notability"_issue shows that your advocacy in favour of Valnet has mostly been rejected. Lewis (baseball) was a featured article that got deleted when taken to AfD, so your point about "being used in featured articles" is meritless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows there's an ongoing discussion. Raichu uses a Screen Rant source and it was accepted after the author's credentials were demonstrated. Additionally, looking at the Lewis (baseball) AfD the issue wasn't Valnet, but sigcov in general, so you're misrepresenting the cause there.

It also doesn't change the fact that your whole stance is based on where the article is posted, as if somehow it'd be fine if Henley had posted on IGN. If you're going to counter a source, at least do it on the subject matter of the source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, and, moreover, the sources are plenty fine for this sort of article. Criticism of Valnet seems to me not organic, but likely driven by editors who attack it just to get at content like this. What do we want in a Pokemon article that this article doesn't have? Is the truthfulness of what's here really in dispute? I know those are larger questions than many AfD participants are willing to consider, but really key to assessing the article-specific appropriateness of disputed sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an article passes notabilty is never about the content, but about whether the topic the article is about is notable. Rather lacklustre articles are kept all the time in the hypothetical chance that someone could bother to expand them and sometimes even featured articles are deleted, as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). The idea that article quality should come into AfD is against the consensus of how AfD works. The idea is that we generally shouldn't have articles about minor aspects of video games like individual characters, unless they obviously have significant notability separate from the series they are part of, like Pikachu, etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that we generally shouldn't have articles about minor aspects of video games like individual characters. This statement seems to imply you're approaching this from the angle you feel it is not notable because it's a "minor aspect" of a video game, rather than if there was significant discussion about how it was received by reliable, secondary sources, which is the actual deciding factor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of significant discussion is joke articles, game guides and listicles. Yes I don't think we should have articles about video game characters with the exception of rare and obvious cases (Pikachu, Mario, Sonic etc). Wikipedia had discusions about Pokemon notability many years ago and it was decided that the vast majority of them were not notable (see Wikipedia:Pokémon test for some details), and I see no reason to change that consensus. By the standards you are asserting here, most Pokemon would probably be "notable" if we counted all the clickbait and game guide-eque coverage of Pokemon on contemporary video game websites, and I strongly disagree with that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I am unsure as to which articles you're referring to in this article that are listicles, jokes, or game guides. Also, the discussion back in the day spoke not to that most Pokémon are non-notable (even though that is true, there is likely not sigcov in the known universe for 50% of Pokémon forms). The discussion found that no sources could be discerned for most Pokémon species, a fact that is less true now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia I regret to inform you that things have come along quite some time since the Pokemon test essay, and to boot we're well past the days of people citing "GameDaily ranked Togepi sixth on their Top Ten List of Eggs in Gaming" when "most Pokemon articles" were deemed non-notable. I want to assume good faith, but your approach feels very hostile: instead of citing what sources you feel are bad based on what they're saying in the reception section or policy issues with the article, your tone is coming across more in line with WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I should mention that IDONTLIKEIT applies to not liking the content of articles, not the sources used in them. I see an argument that some Pokemon are notable (they even gave Pikachu as an example), but only if the sources used are up to par in their quality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: In this case, I'm referring to his stance that only articles such as those should be viable and citing a past consensus, when neither jives with policy: subjects can become notable over time, and there is nothing in policy saying subjects cannot be "minor" elements of media, let alone that they must be in par with the Pikachus and Sonics of such media.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: I still think that is more of a mistaken belief than not LIKING it. However, to that end, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pokémon test as I personally think the page does more harm than good. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would be more comfortable if there was greater diversity of source and more articles about Delibird (or even Iron Bundle), but I find that sigcov has been demonstrated. It's also important to remember that being covered in another article does not disqualify as sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I admit that it did get some coverage amounting to several articles from various publications, but look closer at those articles and their actual content is very short - incredibly so in some cases. I do not think that most of the coverage rises to the level of significant. My argument is not with their tone, but purely about their length and the amount of detail or lack thereof. To put it simply, if I made such an article I'd expect it to be merged, so that's what I'll say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making a note for the closing editor that the initial argument for the article was added to by the nominator after significant discussion took place [1].--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tweaking things after the fact is not good Wikiquette. It should be clear that was added later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's definitely something to note when the discussion is closed.

Redirect per OP. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Keep: As the person who created this article, as well as complied with other editors in order to get this article to reach the GA status, I fail to see how this article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. To address one of the key arguments made by the nominator, articles relating to Pokemon Go/guides only pertain to the concept and appearances section, which only serve to found facts about the subject matter and do not serve the same purpose as the reception section, the heart of what makes the character notable. As for the sources in said section, I believe they do a great job at conveying why Delibird deserves to have an article with sources GamesRadar+, Kotaku and Eurogamer all making differentiating talking points. As for the Valnet sources, I believe Kung Fu Man displayed compelling points as to why these should help support the article, especially TheGamer as not only is the writer well established on other news website, but that websites have been used for both FLs and FAs. Again, I believe these sources do a substantial job in depicting what it is that makes Delibird unique and standout in order to have an article, and all do a good job of passing WP:SIGCOV as they are written within good quality and not the bog standard content farm-type content these websites are often labelled. Even in the case of a source like the TechCrunch article, despite it being in a list type format, it goes well into depth about the subject at hand and isn't something that you'd see on 1UP.com a decade ago. To end my point, this article follows the respective guidelines put in-place at the VG character task force and, even though it could have better sources, falls in-line and demonstrates GNG and SIGCOV. Captain Galaxy 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Reception section contains enough SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage is shown, primarily in the reception section. Delibird isn't Pikachu or Eevee, but it has certain garnered enough critical attention in the past few decades to pass the GNG. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Keep! ...Weirdly, although I didn't expect this to be the case for Delibird originally, there's enough coverage from reliable secondary sources to genuinely meet the standards of WP:GNG, for this page to remain in existence. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quiver (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG.

I was able to find the following reviews from Hardcore Gaming 101 (English), PC Player (German), PC Player (German; again), PC Gamer (Polish), PC Gamer (Polish; again), OK PC Gamer (Spanish), and Giochi Per Il Mio Computer (Italian). That might sound like quite a bit of reviews, but the only reviews that spend more than a paragraph reviewing Quiver are the Hardcore Gaming 101 and the PC Player reviews, and the content of those reviews would make for a barebones article.

I can't find anything else, especially since the game's entries on Metacritic, IGN, and Absolute Games are empty. As such, this game does not have the significant coverage from multiple sources required to be notable. Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some evidence of a moderate level of WP:OFFLINE content: the developer's website claims positive coverage from WP:VG/S sources including GamesDomain and PC Gamer and at least acknowledgement from GameSpot and another few sources. MobyGames suggests some more non-RS reviews were out there in the form of the Adrenaline Vault. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that content is produced and happens to be reasonably significant coverage, then that could be evidence of notability. In regards to quotes in that webpage, I was able to verify the Games Domain review here. Reasonably in-depth and could potentially contribute to the game's notability, though I'm not sure if its sufficient. The rest I couldn't verify: PC Gamer UK doesn't list Quiver in its index of games; I could not verify the existence of a ZDNet review, especially given they are mostly tech-focused; Gamespot's entry is empty; and I have no idea what GamerWorld, Game Developer Radio Show, or Game Excape are. Lazman321 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would say the fairly in-depth GD review leans the game to a weak keep given there are now three reliable, independent reviews that cover the subject in depth, narrowly enough to factually describe most of the aspects of the game and how it was received. That's all it needs for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)

Keep Based on the 2 reviews at GamesDomain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I've also found The Tampa Tribune review. Timur9008 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timur9008: Could you give a link to it? Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, never mind, you already added it to the page Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator I have expanded the article by incorporating the sources that have been found as best as I could. Is this substantial enough to keep? I'm still not sure. Lazman321 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews from Hardcore Gaming 101, Games Domain and PC Player are SIGCOV and are enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee weapon

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

Seems to be largely original research or merely a WP:DICDEF. "Melee weapon" seems to be almost entirely a tabletop gaming term, so I suggest a merge to Role-playing game terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I can understand the desire for a classification of "melee weapon", I don't really believe the term itself deserves a dedicated article. I can't really come up with a coherent response without sounding like a wiki-ouroboros, and WP:DICDEF is the best I can come up with. Broadly construed from the use cases of the term I know, a melee weapon is a non-projectile weapon intended for close-quarter combat. Dictionary.com might be more suited for this than Wikipedia. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. This is a glossary entry at best. A redirect would be acceptable if there is an intelligent target. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the fact that this exists in 15 other Wikipedia languages. Fails WP:NOTDICT, let alone WP:WORDISSUBJECT. JuniperChill (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [2], Mean Machines: [3] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [4]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [5], Nintendo Power: [6]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [7],[8] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Chang

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

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

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

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

Merge to Michelle Chang (Tekken), to whom the character is (fictionally) sufficiently connected. BD2412 T 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michelle Chang (Tekken). There is not ebough discussion about this character apparently after doing BeFORe. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Don't think she stands out sufficiently for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boneless Pizza. The coverage on this character is too thin to pass WP:SIGCOV. Michelle Chang is a good target (and a good example of the level of coverage we need). Shooterwalker (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The significant coverage source (Filmaga) is primarily just a one paragraph synopsis. The source primarily focuses on Pokémon: The First Movie, and the paragraph on this film acts as part of a brief summary for other appearances of Mewtwo rather than acting as the main focus of the article, so I'm not sure if it falls under Wikipedia:SIGCOV at all, and even then it wouldn't help with Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as it's mostly plot details and nothing more. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Pokémon_films#Television_specials - None of the above sources are SIGCOV (including Filmaga, it's just a short paragraph) but Rotten Tomatoes lists reviews by film critic Christopher Null and DVD Talk. Unfortunately Null's review is a permanent dead link: [9], you can also see the review listed here: [10]. So that leaves only the DVD Talk review, which isn't enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon: The First Movie as the closest thing to it. I am not convinced it passes GNG, even if the missing review were found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h, the article is mostly just plot with no WP:SIGCOV. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Wikipedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT, and this needs reception and analysis to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Araya (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bloody Disgusting ref is a news announcement, not significant coverage. Reviews in azralynn.com and the two additional reviews listed at Mobygames: [11] (Brash Games, GameAwards.ru) are self published sources, no indication that they are reliable. Brash Games is also listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Thailand. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of in-depth coverage in Thai[12][13][14], including a scoop on Thai PBS [15]. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looky (Rainbow Friends)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is so obviously not notable, its a waste of time to further humor this user let's just get rid of this garbage. The mini-game in Roblox that these characters are supposedly from doesn't even have it's own article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable character in a non-notable game. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rainbow Friends itself isn’t notable. 2 WP:PRIMARY and 1 possible RS, on its little paragraph in List of Roblox games. Why would its characters be? ^{(maybe I’m tripping over WP:NOTINHERITED’s common arguments to avoid, but oh well.)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources present that indicate any notability for this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Origin was not even notable in the first place and the fact this article exists is just ridiculous. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Little character from a non-notable game. Babysharkboss2!! ^(Hardwired!) 15:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more children's non-notable media items. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems rather inspired by https://wikirainbowfriends.fandom.com/wiki/Lookies. I don't see Looky or Lookies mentioned at List of Roblox games#Rainbow Friends where the article might have been redirected to, and with the current sourcing it does not meet WP:NFICT. Sam Sailor 11:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Zero notability at all and even its main subject doesn't seem notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article discusses a non-notable character from a non-notable game. Honestly, this looks like the type of thing that one would find in a fan wiki. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and likely WP:SNOW close) we rarely have articles on characters from a video game, let alone from ones without an article as sources rarely focus on a specific character. Abigail (Stardew Valley) comes into mind. Even if the character meats the notability standards, then its usually best to say that information in a relevant article than its own. JuniperChill (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcutter

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But don't ignore that one IGN source that covers the game in detail - I have definitely come across game articles here that only have one big RS and it passed. I have just added three non-English reviews from publications that might be suitable. FYI the Nintendo-Master site seems to have been cited in articles on the French Wikipedia. Sceeegt (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots of reviews. All non-RS? [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any actual RS reviews besides the one mentioned by the nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across game articles before that relied on one major RS. While not ideal, it is at least something that adds to notability. Sceeegt (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One review is not enough to meet notability guidelines. --Mika1h (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately the review coverage as others have said is non-WP:VG/S, or of the type that typically wouldn't be seen as reliable. This tends to be a common issue with indie games that are getting coverage on self-published / blog / small review sites - it's sadly not enough to substantiate notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect I do think that the Chao Garden itself is marginally notable. [22] [23] [24] However, this article is unsalvageable and would require a total rewrite to fulfill notability, centered around the minigame rather than the actual creatures. It shouldn't be left as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's state is dreadful, but the Chao / Chao Garden definitely meet notability requirements. From a quick Google search I found a Nintendo Life feature, two articles on a Chao-inspired game, multiple articles on Iizuka's announcement there wouldn't be a standalone Chao game ([25][26], [27]), and a few articles on a Chao Garden fan game (Polygon, Kotaku), all filled with commentary that could be integrated in this article. It might be worth reworking this into a Chao Garden-focused article instead of having it as a Chao article, as sources more describe the mode as a whole than the characters specifically. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge then rename it into "Chao Garden" per above. I don't see any reason on why this article should remain, until some actual sigcov have been discovered. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boneless Pizza. There doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV, but this can be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. There also may be something to writing an article about an unreleased game. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this material. This can definitely be repurposed, and there is room on Wikipedia as a fairly significant part of the Sonic series. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Schmitz

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

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

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

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

Delete Per source assessment and nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Rush (franchise)

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

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

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

Crazy Bus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Music is only a sentence or two. Not significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack was also featured on a 2022 episode of BBC Radio 3's 'Late Junction' program covering gaming soundtracks, though it is not possible to see what was specifically said about it. [28] JSwift49 14:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. There's very little actual substantive coverage, and what does exist isn't enough to build an article on. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that the game's notorious audio is well-known but the citations in the article do not provide much coverage of any other aspects of the game, little that there is. Most of the sources are listicles, which is fine, but their purpose and content is mostly alone to state that the menu music sucks. I don't think a passing academic reference is good evidence that it's brought attention to Venezuelan game development. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the basic coverage of other aspects of the game is to be expected, as the game is known for being exceedingly simple (drive the bus back and forth and honk the horn). So the soundtrack is the main aspect of notoriety, though you also have AVGN, the academic reference, Niconico News with dedicated coverage of the game at large, plus some of the listicles discussing the soundtrack also mention the gameplay.

Screen Rant says the game is "on the list of must-play games for YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and retro enthusiasts interested in the more bizarre parts of gaming history."
There were also two books/reference guides? in Japanese about CrazyBus written by the same person; however I could only find previews of a couple of pages.
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434377
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434354
JSwift49 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AVGN is non-RS per WP:VG/S unless it's widely reported that the AVGN review itself is notable. For the others, again, what mention there is of the game is trivial or not really reliable. Screen Rant mentions it very briefly in passing. And I can't see any evidence those books have anything to do with the game from the links supplied? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we have an academic source covering the AVGN interview, and Screen Rant additionally gives Crazy Bus five sentences on its list of worst soundtracks?

Re. the books, the page previews I found confirm they are about CrazyBus (they are both linked in the article). JSwift49 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the article was first created, I argued that there was enough coverage of the game by sources to warrant inclusion. The addition of further references demonstrates this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia article has seven references. Left guide (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as not meet GNG --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've expanded it significantly, should be let go now and the nomination for deletion can be removed Doktor"74 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4J Studios and/or draftify it until the game receives better coverage closer to release. WP:TOOSOON if there's not even a release date and the article itself is saying any features are subject to change. Not seeing why this can't be dealt with on the developer's page for now. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. There is legitimate potential for this to become notable, with good sources. But those sources don't exist yet. A redirect is the best way to remove an article without sufficient sourcing, while respecting credible evidence that this could one day be expanded. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You have in-depth coverage from Gameindustry.biz covering the game's engine and the studio's approach to development, as well as standard coverage from RPS, PCGamesN, GameSpot, and Eurogamer. It may be a bit too soon but there is enough for a proper article. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Contents

Video games-related deletions

Game Sack

Delibird

Quiver (video game)

Melee weapon

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

Julia Chang

Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns

Araya (video game)

Looky (Rainbow Friends)

Dreamcutter

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

Cory Schmitz

Gravity Rush (franchise)

Crazy Bus

Reforj

Proposed deletions

Redirects