Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad

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

Reception sources were mostly just from game reviews. I tried to do BEFORE at google, but unfortunately I have found nothing valuable at all. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. The significant coverage doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Trainer

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

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

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

Turboraketti

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

There seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG - all I was able to find on Archive.org was a brief review in Amiga Magazin February 1994 p.80, and short coverage of Turboraketti II in Skrolli's April 2014 issue p.46-47, no substantial coverage. Waxworker (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete - Substantial review in Pelit magazine and a section in a retrospective (also Pelit) but it's still not enough to pass GNG. ~~MikroBitti could have coverage around 1992-93 but didn't find scans online from that period.~~ --Mika1h (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this fairly short review by Mikrobitti. --Mika1h (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also some coverage in the book Sinivalkoinen pelikirja [fi]. (bottom left of the page, a bit cropped) toweli (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That uses in parts identical text as the Pelit retrospective (same writer). Also there's this brief thing by Vapriikki Museum Centre: [1]. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Invader

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and
WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

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

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of
Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so
WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move
Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Space Machine

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

Sourcing is exclusively interviews, with no critical commentary in sight. Metacritic turns up no critic reviews, and searches per

general notability guidelines. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found 3 instances of SIGCOV, in PC Zone, Polygon and Nintendo Life. What might trip people up is that the game was initially called 1993 Shenandoah before being renamed 1993 Space Machine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per zxcvbnm's sources Queen of ♡ | speak 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear)

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [2] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Silfade

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

In the

WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Nodus Domini

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

Fails

WP:GNG. The game is mentioned in passing in 3 of 5 sources and the other 2 are database entries. No added content since its creation in 2021. Humsorgan (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Czech Republic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Video games that were canceled before release are not notable, thus do not deserve their article. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters

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

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

WP:LISTN

.

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

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

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

Comment Changing my vote to redirect. Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option?

^{• whaddya want? •} 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per
WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out. Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case. MoonJet (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I tend to favor ATD but I don't think The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday is a likely search term for readers. I think it would be better to create separate Redirects for each game or provide a link on the main game articles to the Game Boy Advance games article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday

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

Did an extensive search, found only one review: [3] Otherwise, there's almost no coverage. Also checked print sources, only to find brief mentions of it in a couple Nintendo Power magazines. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I'm stumped here. It seems decidedly non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't believe that the GameSpot review wasn't cited – and then realized it was only a single user review. Very telling in terms of coverage. The Nintendo Power mentions I found are... not exactly coverage ([4]). Firm !delete here. Nomader (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rapture (BioShock). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy (BioShock)

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

This character looks a bit popular for Bioshock. But before the result shows only merchandise and costume or being cosplayed. This source is a bit good [5], but it looks like another typical listicle with a short commentary. Nothing else. I may be wrong at Google Scholar thou. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
WP:ATD. Seems like largely trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. The coverage doesn't meet
WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Zxcvbnm as well – this is very trivial coverage. Nomader (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. In agreement regarding reception. HopalongCasualty (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Balloon Brothers

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on the article are arcade database listings, KLOV is reliable per

WP:VG/RS while Arcade History is unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Enigma Engine

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Super Mario. This is pretty evenly split but the informal source analysis helped tilt this to a Redirect closure rather than another relisting. My hope is that since the content remains, an editor(s) can get going on creating Super Mario Universe and later Merge this content into that new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom

)

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

Procedural listing. This was

WP:BLARed, restored, then BLARed a second time, and per that page, Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario. There's nothing really being said in the article and I trust in the previous redirector's judgement of the potential sourcing state. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Draftify. As of right now there is nothing on this article that seems to suggest that the subject of this article holds enough water to stay up. This article is mostly filled with primary, situational or even unreliable sources. The only two positive sources here are the GamesRadar+ sources and even then one is a listicle. Now, I am not entirely sure if there is
WP:SIGCOV for this subject, it wouldn't surprise me if there is but it would likely take quite a while to find the necessary coverage, which is what prompted me to suggest a draft because I believe the subject does have potential. But as of right now, I think any useful information from this article should be merged into the Mario (franchise) article, as it was redirected towards two weeks ago. Captain Galaxy 23:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
To clarify, the problem with listicle articles is that often it's about one entry on the list, making it trivial coverage. For example, if an article lists "50 greatest Mario characters"... obviously, almost all characters of any import would be included. However, the listicle would still be quite significant if we were talking about a character list that needed reception. In this case, the listicles are entirely about the Mushroom Kingdom, and it's not a "10 best Mario areas" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem with listicles, but not the only one. Listicles are often a hallmark of low-quality and low-effort content farms, or in other words an indicator of a lack of seriousness and significance of coverage. xkcd's quip about the "17 worst haircuts in the Ottoman Empire" comes to mind. They typically do not in themselves indicate notability either of the individual entries or the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the listicle is about the Mushroom Kingdom, but the problem I'm having with this is that the entries on this list are very surface level in terms of coverage, or that they aren't worth mentioning. In my opinion, it's quite fancruft-y. Captain Galaxy 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love the snobbery here: GNG is met, but these aren't serious RS'es, so they don't count. Fancruft argument here is circular: looks like what some editors consider badly written Wikipedia article, therefore cannot be an RS. Sorry, folks, that's not how RS works. We judge Wikipedia by them, not them by Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly possible for a usually-reliable outlet to produce non-reliable content (and vice versa, for the matter), which I'm sure you're aware of. Likewise, it is possible for
WP:NOPAGE situation. TompaDompa (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't think that this would be needed for a long-standing editor, but describing people's AfD arguments as "snobbery" is a deeply explicit violation of
WP:CIVILITY. If you aren't able to engage with the things people say without making these kinds of comments, I'm not sure you should really be commenting on things. It's also not snobbery, as TompaDompa points out, which makes the claim extra confusing. It is not snobbery to say that offering trivial coverage of a subject is of lower value, it's a common sense observation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
Deletion is not cleanup. The article may not be in a good state but the topic is quite notable. I found articles from Kill Screen, GamesRadar+, TheGamer and that's totally ignoring stuff like ScreenRant that is debatably notable as they have an article on it too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I really would not use that weirdly in-universe-feeling TheGamer listicle for establishing notablity (as per discussion here) but wow, that Kill Screen article is amazing and exactly what I needed back when I failed to improve this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Super Mario. I tried cleaning up the article about a year ago, but gave up when I realized that strictly "cleaning up" the article would cut it down to almost nothing - pretty much the whole article would have to be redone. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of
WP:TNT it would be eminently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that the implication of Serge's comment is that there is a lack of sourcing in the article, and comparatively little to say as demonstrated by said sourcing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Zx's sources. Though the article is not in the best state, I don't think its bad enough for a TNT either. MoonJet (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Zxcvbnm Koopinator (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done a
WP:BEFORE
yet, so for now, I'm looking at what is present. ~~I'll put it in a collapsible list to save space.~~
The Evening Standard is verifying information and is not about the Mushroom Kingdom, not GNG-relevant.
The next source includes info about its use in the theme park, which is generally understood to not be relevant to GNG (also article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom).
The next two sources are Nintendo sources.
The GamesRadar+ source seems to primarily discuss factual information. It represents a show that staff deemed the kingdom worthwhile to talk about, but there's also not much to be gained from the source for the article.
The Gamer source talks about information about Mushroom Kingdom, but does not themselves have anything to say about it. It's yet again an article about the Mushroom Kingdom, but not only does it provide only so much content to be included, being The Gamer makes it dubious as a show of significance.
25YL source only talks about factual information, and the article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom.
The Advocate source is about Toad, not Mushroom Kingdom, and is only to verify the existence of a character in the Mushroom Kingdom.
The second The Gamer source is just about Goombas, while the Forbes article is just about verifying that coins are a currency of the Mushroom Kingdom.
The second GamesRadar+ article seems at first a significant source, but to be honest, it does not strike me as such. The article is primarily about a location **within** the Mushroom Kingdom, and discusses the Mushroom Kingdom only minimally.
The Smashbros.com source is a primary source used to verify the existence of a "Mushroom Kingdom" stage.

Keeping this one out because I feel it's an important part of the assessment, as it's what seems like the strongest show of notability on the surface. Finally, the Kill Screen source is one that, once again, feels like a source that is about Mushroom Kingdom, but in reality, is using it as an opportunity to discuss things that happen within it. Looking at the 'Development' section, the article is sourced to talk about the Super Mushroom, the designs of the castles (mainly Peach's Castle - honestly if that was an article I'd maybe think it'd have a chance), Mario enemies, and the Super Leaf. The Mushroom Kingdom appears to be an umbrella for these potentially notable topics to be discussed, but I think counting stuff like Koopa Troopas and the Super Leaf as showing the notability of Mushroom Kingdom is a pretty big stretch. It seems to me like an article with weak sourcing is trying to use whatever it can to inflate it, and to me, the proof of this is that Mario's design inspirations and ideas, despite being covered under "Mushroom Kingdom" like Koopa Troopa was, it would rightly feel odd.

In its current state, the article is extremely weak, with very little in the way of commentary, let alone notability. Most of the article is taking brief mentions to verify factual information about the setting, to the point that the article has exactly zero instances of anyone having anything to say about the setting themselves. I'm holding off on voting until Zx does some more work to address notability issues, as well as for me to do my own searching (especially Japanese sources, those can often be rather surprising). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have been feeling the same way. There being no reception on the general design characteristics of the world (rounded hills, bright-green grass, lots of brown bricks) has always been the main pain for me here. If no one's talking about the Mushroom Kingdom being a blue skyed utopia or something along those lines, there's just so little to work with... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about locations within the Mushroom Kingdom still count as proof of notability for the Kingdom itself. The argument that they could never possibly do so is a bit ludicrous in my eyes and feels like a no true Scotsman-type argument. I doubt Peach's Castle can support an article, but this is the most obvious place to put that information by far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't get why you think that, when the two sources that appear like significant coverage provide more sigcov on Peach's Castle than the Mushroom Kingdom. It's not a matter of saying that a source has to do a deep dive into the Mushroom Kingdom to be notable, but fact is, the argument for Princess Peach's Castle's notability is more adequately proven in the Mushroom Kingdom article than the argument for notability of the Mushroom Kingdom itself. The GamesRadar+ source doesn't even make sense, because the commentary in that article is almost entirely, if not entirely, focused on how it makes players feel to explore and experience the castle, about how they make it more lived in compared to Dinosaur Land. The article discusses it not as a setting, but as a level, and how it influences other Mario levels. As far as notability goes, there are multiple reliable sources about modding Peach's Castle into other games, there is creation info relating to how it was possibly going to serve as the basis for Ocarina's setup, multiple sources about how it was a significant part of why Super Mario 64 was a special game, multiple sources about a financial assessment of what Peach's Castle would be worth in real life, articles praising it as a standout hub world in gaming, and more. I find the notion that there's more to the article now compared to what I've found for Peach's Castle kind of incredulous!

I also do not believe remotely that sources for locations in the Mushroom Kingdom count as overall notability; at what point does that extend to, say, Mushroom World, the encompassing world of the Mario universe? Is Lordran notable because Anor Lando is notable? We can't argue that a location in a space makes that space notable, the only thing that can be used to say a location is notable is if we have reliable, significant secondary coverage of it. As it stands, and in the sources I've searched so far, there is virtually nothing that critics are saying about the setting. Based on what little I've found in my source search, I don't really feel like this article comes close to notability. As it is, all of the content is just descriptions of the setting and things that happen to exist in the setting. Redirect to Super Mario. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do personally think this article serves as a coatrack (just don't look at that guideline) for the entire Super Mario setting, similar to a "Universe of .." article. I am quite happy with sources that dive into specific details from the Mushroom Kingdom, such as Peach' castle or even its cast of critters. I'm just not very happy with listicles that try to explain in-universe oddities between games or take those oddities literally. The Mushroom Kingdom isn't a kingdom. It doesn't have a clearly defined monarch or even any towns, and a source that suggests that Bowser used to be the king or some stuff like that I just can't take seriously... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario per Cukie Gherkin's analysis. I do not agree with the idea that locations within a place can be used unsupported to make an article about the place itself. ― novov (t c) 04:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as to someone who redirected this article before and per Cukie's analysis. I don't feel like the other sources were good except for Killscreen, though that talks about Mario and Koopa Troopa's design. not really that helpful, but at least we have a good source right there. Still not enough for me for that. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm sorry, but the sources by ZX I feel are not significant enough to justify the article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Cukie Gherkin's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect as implied by the nominator. A source analysis would be helpful since improvements have been made to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Cukie Gherkin. There is, in fact, a source analysis above by Cukie Gherkin, but the list is hidden to save screen space. The article was updated on the same day as this analysis, but no new sources have been. That analysis addressed the independence of sources and correctly discounts Nintendo sources. It also addresses SIGCOV of the remaining sources, and is in line with my own view. Most of the sources are not about the page subject but merely mention it. Reliability is raised over a source that does speak directly about it, and even where the subject is addressed, there are SIGCOV issues. I think this source analysis is good enough, unrebutted, and indicates that a redirect would be the best outcome here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I find redirecting to Super Mario fine where the subject is being mentioned. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised that there isn't a Super Mario Universe article or something of the like. There are lots of sources that talk about this fictional universe, and an entire book called "The World of Mario Bros" (which would be another valid redirect).[6] I see at least one more good source from Zxcvbnm, and arguably more. I can find at least a few more myself.[7][8][9] I feel pretty confident that sources exist out there if this is approached as the main article for the game universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the equivalent of "Universe of Super Mario", as it is the primary setting of the franchise. It could be a reasonable move, but that's a separate discussion. These sources have a lot of potential, though you did post the same Shacknews article twice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see a rationale provided in the nomination, but I assume this is about notability. The sources found in this discussion and partially present provide enough coverage to be able to write a full encyclopedic article, so I see
WP:AtD: If that's a good source, what has now been added based on that source should at least be merged. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think people !voting merge or redirect are praising Killscreen. I see that happening with a single editor. Meanwhile, I've made the argument that the Killscreen source does not say much at all. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:WHYN. Always with the fact in mind that sources do not need to have the subject as their main topic. Daranios (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

ClanLib

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

Nothing in the article suggests this meets

WP:SIGCOV-compliant). Can anyone save this? Otherwise we can consider a redirect target, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Piotrus:, are you asserting that what the article purports to be full chapters in two different game programming books doesn't amount to SIGCOV? I don't have access to or know these sources, so maybe you know something not obvious from the description here. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 I did not realize the second one is a book (dead link, all refs are malformatted and don't suggest they are books). The third one does link to a book page but I could not verify the contents (it is just publisher page). I also remain unconvinced that coverage in how-to/textbooks is sufficient to prove something is notable, unless those books are widely used. There is a lot of low quality spammy how-to/textbooks in the computer sciences field, particularly now in the AI days (although those works are likely old enough to at least not be AI creations). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Game Programming with Python, Lua, and Ruby" does indeed have a chapter on it, although I can't access the full text, unsure about the other one. There seems to be some decent sources in Google Books and some in Scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer Is the publisher (Premier Press)? Their website suggests they do print-on-demand stuff, so self-publishing. See [10] or Our work helps you achieve your marketing goals.. Assuming this is the right company, this one does a lot of non-book gadget printing?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Amazon lists pub as Course Technology PTR, a subsiduary of Cengage Group. Course Technology PTR has Premier Press as an imprint. While I'm fairly confident who the publisher is, I can't say whether or not there's editorial control. @Piotrus I suspect you have an unrelated Premier Press website there, by the looks of it they're not in educational publishing. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some stuff I found if you'd like to look at it and decide upon its reliability. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: List of games built with ClanLib: https://web.archive.org/web/20060626025824/http://www.clanlib.org/games.html - all of them seems to be hobby projects or even learning projects. I doubt that any of that on it's own would have Wikipedia article. Quickly looking at the list I do not see anything commercial or noteworthy. Pbm (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dan Gelber (game designer)

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best!

talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of
talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge and redirect to
WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Place above as comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mupen64Plus

Mupen64Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

#3 is one paragraph in a list
#8 is one paragraph sourced to a forum post
#9 does not mention the software
#10 mentions the software once

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Found an article in Win Magazine, and a paragraph in CD-Action. Combining that with the Digital Trends mention I think it weakly passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h. I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [17], [18], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [19]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1219463692"