Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion/2015

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Deletion

April 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (

(Y) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Prey 2

Prey 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prey 2 has been cancelled, according to a statement from developers Bethesda Softworks during PAX Australia 2014. This debate is to give a final disposition to this cancelled game. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:22, 30 April 2015 (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.

April 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. czar 

⨹ 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Oath of Genesis

Oath of Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, no claims of notability and only primary or self-generated sources available. Declined speedy since A7 does not apply to software products. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Question: Is there anything I need to prove that my article has notability ?
    Talk
    ) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Some days ago a article was released in newspaper about owner and oath of genesis game by writer. Can it be submit as evidence as notability and independent source ?
    Talk
    ) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information, details, sources and references are updated. Check and review.
    Talk
    ) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • You cannot !vote "Keep" more than once in the same deletion debate. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't found any coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the
    WP:PROMOTION issues here as well. (Sidenote: Also strange that all the characters of this game take character names from this game.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: I have submitted IMDb source. Also I have submitted Wikia Article. But both has removed it. Also, owner of game can submit article to Wikipedia. The point of view of article writer should be neutral. So, I have submitted as view of normal editor. Also, I haven't put any promotion links or text for game promotion. Soon I will submit rating from game rating sites as notability and independent source. So, there should be no objection about this article on Wikipedia.
    Talk
    ) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Again, please stop writing "Keep" before every comment you make. Its only done once per discussion, so the discussion closer can roughly see the number individuals who contributed, and their stance to go with it. You've said "Keep" once already, so you shouldn't any more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Icekings25 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)I don't think that this page should be deleted. Its obvious that this guy is a new user so it takes time for the independent sources and I think that soon it will pass notability guidelines. So he must get some more time to prove himself.[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason to keep an article. I don't mean to be blunt, but if he doesn't know what he's doing, he shouldn't be trying to create entire articles all by himself yet. But regardless, the fate of the article is decided by the third party reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, not the skill-level of the editor. Additionally, I find it rather suspicious that your first edit in 2 years, and your 3rd edit all time, was to leave a comment here at a deletion discussion. Please be aware that this is
    asking for people to comment just to defend their article for them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC): @Sergecross73... Hello, Icekings25 is my companion and i told him to give review about my article. I didn't tell him to defend my article from deletion. As I mentioned before, I will submit reviews by game rating sites as they approve it. What we want is little time to edit article. So, I request you to remove deletion tag from article. And in future if you see any text related to game promotion, you can delete my article even without notice. So, I request you.[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.

April 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloodborne characters

List of Bloodborne characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of characters is not notable enough to have its own page. Very limited information is provided.

talk) 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per what was already said here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in merge discussion, not worth redirecting and a list of only 2 characters with no significant commentary. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of Bloodborne characters lacks
    ⨹ 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete. Character lists tend to fall under
WP:GAMECRUFT if not notable enough, and this is no exception. BlookerG talk 12:02, 26 April 2015 (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.

April 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to

WP:PERABOVE which I've set aside as it's not clear to what it is referring. The other offers more detail, but there's no clear rationale for keeping that's based on a policy. Redirecting rather than deleting as a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dinnerbone

Dinnerbone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from working as a programmer for a company that has received a decent amount of attention, the subject of this page does not convey that this individual is any more notable than the forty-six other Mojang employees. Unless there are sources that indicate that this figure has achieved something notable themselves, this page should be deleted.

talk•cont 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (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.

April 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a skull

It's a skull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded for

WP:NSONG with no references and no claim of notability. Prod removed with the comment, "this is definitely relevant, and the capitalization is correct per the original usage. this is one of the first "memes" -- thus its historical relevance. (I deleted the recommendation for article deletion)" Now brought to AfD for further discussion. Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (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 keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud9 (team)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability is given. Notability tag was removed without any effort made to show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intrinsic problem is that articles like this straddle
WP:POTENTIAL
.
Links
And some More
talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with this Engadget article. Yes, its a RS, but very little of the article is about Cloud 9, and of that already small part, much of it is a few direct quotes from one of their members rather than any coverage on them. And the IGN source? Less than 2 sentences of it actually discuss Cloud 9 itself. I hope there are better sources out there, so far every one I'm checking is very trivial coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    League of Legends Championship Series
    or another competition article, maybe Dota? I reviewed all of the above sources. The only ones that matter for our purposes (secondary, reliable, independent sources) are:
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-league-of-legends-challenger-team/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/c9t-yusui-i-think-we-have-the-highest-amount-of-in/1100-6426693/ – an interview, so doesn't constitute secondary reporting
http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3496509/cloud9-acquires-smite-world-championship-winners-cognitive-prime – could work, but I'm concerned about reliability, no editorial policy
All the other stuff was passing/non-dedicated mentions or unreliable sources. At most, the reliable ones of the lot could be used to source a few sentences on the team's sponsorships, but not much more. I'm willing to change my mind if others can find articles
⨹ 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Both (as well as other variants), but I also established that having a bunch of search hits from IGN, Kotaku, doesn't actually mean that the subject was covered in any meaningful way. I reviewed the sources and only listed those that I thought mattered towards the subject's case. The rest were passing mentions and/or had just as much coverage about a number of other non-notable teams. czar 
⨹ 02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm inclined to agree with you here. A ton of trivial mentions, very little significant coverage. I'd recommend a redirect as well, though I don't know what the best target would be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added
⨹ 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually redirecting is an incredibly poor idea, as alone there are six other teams not including the LCS team in six different games. People coming here may be looking for information on the match fixing by C9 in the CS:GO sphere

The Dota team is the current record holder for the longest competitive game ever

There is plenty of coverage from reliable eSports sources like the DailyDot, but your search doesn't curate them as most of the Gaming news sites don't give much coverage to eSports, other than saying it exists.
talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
People also come for all sorts of things we don't provide. The idea of a redirect is to provide a reasonable result for someone looking for the subject, which the above redirect would do. This said, I dug around in your sources again (had seen the Kotaku article and pcgamesn has no hallmarks of
⨹ 00:23, 23 April 2015 (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.

April 19 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megaverse Simulation Network

Megaverse Simulation Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiples Google News, Books and browser searches with "Megaverse Simulation Network" and with "Open Source" and "software" added provided nothing. I'm not an expert with software or this product but it seems there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Finding no secondary source coverage in the typical searches, but didn't look too hard considering that the "game" and "genre" aspect of the article's first draft appears to be a joke. The software is clearly described as a simulator and not a real-time strategy game. Please ping me if other sources, esp. non-English or offline, are found. czar 
    ⨹ 02:24, 20 April 2015 (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 keep. (

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject; mostly

promotional (article) in nature. Quis separabit? 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of it was cleaned up. @
⨹ 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ahh that makes a little more sense. ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 22 April 2015 (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.

April 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The Delete !votes are pretty much "not notable" without explanation and without addressing the sourcing unearthed by Satellizer ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kern

Mark Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. In its current state, the only information in here is that he used to work on World of Warcraft and that he used to work on Firefall. I'm not sure what could go into this article that couldn't be added to the articles on Firefall or World of Warcraft. Breadblade (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as
Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra
Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget
The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia
Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247
Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247
Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247
Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247
Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247
The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a
    ⨹ 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar 
⨹ 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kern apparently has some involvement in the
    Gamergate controversy, which attracted attention from VG247. Maybe all this ad up to notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (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 delete. North America1000 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Online Global

Dragon Ball Online Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note that a duplicate article was created at Dragon Ball Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed project that has no secondary source coverage. Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (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 delete.

Soft Deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Derketo (Conan)

Derketo (Conan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character from the Conan series that was barley ever used at all-probably a redirect or merge be the best for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added some words to article about character being in a mmorpg and so added to wikiproject videgames deletion list. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2015 (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.

April 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Dissident's point is heard, but the subject does not appear to meet any criteria of

WP:ASTONISH -- just because he's mention in the infobox of another article that is totally not about him doesn't mean the title should point there. This title can be recreated and redirected to an appaopriate target by anybody who finds one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Matt Furniss

Matt Furniss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No non-trivial third-party coverage to indicate how the subject is notable. Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy

WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Don't see why this is even up for debate, as Furniss is a well known sound designer from the 90s. It would be different if he worked on games without Wikipedia articles, but that isn't the case here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've already said, being involved with a production does not in itself satisfy
reliable third party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
⨹ 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Czar: Finding reliable third party sources on any vgm related topic can be difficult, even for the way more known ones such as Uematsu and Sakuraba. By the way, does rule number 3 on the RS link seems to contradict what Ohnoitsjamie said above, or am I mis-reading? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There would have to be some way of signifying his impact on the field, then. The very idea of Wikipedia is to report the sources and if there are no sources, there is no article we will be able to write, so there has to be a really good reason or some immense notability for doing so. What is rule #3? Don't see any numbered at WP:RS. czar 
⨹ 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability indicated. The list of contributions is just a guy doing his job.--Rpclod (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2015 (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.

April 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet general notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources. It is entirely composed of

written like a game guide. Wani (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think that this article should be removed because I worked very hard on this article and I dedicated about 3 hours of my own life to this. I just want to help. I'll edit it and make it better, just please don't delete it.

There are other outlets to publish game guides, such as game wikis or wikias, your own website, etc. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a repository of all conceivable information. Articles must meet
what Wikipedia is not. Some content here might be incorporated into the main article, but effort does not count in discussions, policies and guidelines do. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per
    WP:LISTN. following up on my previous comment, very little, if any of this content belongs in the main article, and should simply be succinctly summarized. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gameguides are
    ⨹ 22:18, 14 April 2015 (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 redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

BeautiFun Games

BeautiFun Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable games manufacturer. Seems to have only created 1 game, and no independent coverage or reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nihilumbra, the company's (as yet) sole creation. In the future, if they publish more notable titles, the redirect can be re-expanded into a full article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the company has only released one game and News searches show many results but basically all for the game. I can continue searching but I think I know what I'll find, not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 20 April 2015 (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.

April 12 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O2Jam

O2Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets

WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Notifying Woodroar, Marasmusine. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references since 2007. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 21:10, 15 April 2015 (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 no consensus. When weighing the arguments, I seem to lean towards a "keep" closure, but the points brought forward by Czar, NARH and Johnny aren't exactly dismissable either, so I'll close as NC (hoping Serge's sources will be used for the article), but with no objection if later consensus on the talk page is to redirect the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hopper

Dragon Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    ⨹ 10:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like
    WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar 
⨹ 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar 
⨹ 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Articles are kept on the basis of sourcing potential all the time, especially when there is reason to believe that they're out there but we haven't found th all yet, the prime example being games of the early/mid 90s, when nothing's online and it's hard to track down print sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(
⨹ 02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, if the article is kept, it'd be because a nationally published , well-known, reliable source magazine did a 2 page article on it, and that people reasonably assumed that somewhere out there in the world, there's a second print source out there to make it meet the "multiple sources" aspect of the GNG. (Not to mention, the various brief mentions out there.) Also, I've been commenting at AFD for at least as long as you have as well - I know there's precent for my stance as well. I'll have to do some digging to find some examples... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (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 delete. In the absence of reliable sources, a smerge seems inadvisable. Deor (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Is Magic: Premium

Fighting Is Magic: Premium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, sourced solely to blogs. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (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.

April 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion, notably after the thorough discussion of sources by Tokyogirl79, can be summed up as "no consensus between delete and weak keep". There was canvassing but this does not seem to have noticeably skewed the outcome. The article survives by default by a slim margin, but can be relisted if it is not improved in terms of sourcing in a reasonable amount of time.  Sandstein  21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG

AfDs for this article:
MonsterMMORPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the game. Quinto Simmaco and I read through the references and they are little more than game guides, interviews, and/or Pokemon comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - It has significant coverage in
    reliable sources, which means it probably passes the notability threshold. Engadget, SiliconEra are easy-to-find English language sources; there many more sources in other languages (which is understandable since the dev himself is Turkish). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
@
⨹ 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Woodroar why? Because Woodroar is certainly not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. I believe he/she is under very heavy influence of others and also and an article written by him/her has litte to 0 noteable references (Young)_Pioneers which makes claim very biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I may have been under the influence of others last month, maybe even last week. But I haven't consumed anyone for at least a few days. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only meaningful hits in a
    ⨹ 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with
user:czar why? Because I found an article written by him/her which I believe he/she is related to Brainwashed_(website) with little to nothing references. So I don't believe he/she is fully objective with this decision and it is biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
As for coverage the MonsterMMORPG page has four references listed -
video game reliable sources and currently listed there, editorial approved game listing on indiedb (Alexa Rank: 16606, Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on gameslikefinder (Alexa Rank: 50514 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on xmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 209912 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on gameguyz (Alexa Rank: 59045 , Page Rank: 3), game listing by staff Demetrius Crasto on techshout (Alexa Rank: 84868 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on newrpg (Alexa Rank: 1248161 , Page Rank: 0), editorial game listing on mmogames (Alexa Rank: 38427 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news
on kpopstarz (Alexa Rank: 11928 , Page Rank: 5).
The non english noteable references are as follows: game article and extensive video by Marlene Kless on games.de (German, Alexa Rank: 313642 , Page Rank: 4), editorial game listing on 07073.com (Chinese, Alexa Rank: 3197 , Page Rank: 5), game article, listing and review by Allan Valin on baixaki.com.br (Portuguese, Alexa Rank: 593 , Page Rank: 6), game review by Anh Đức on game4v.com (Vietnamese, Alexa Rank: 9576 , Page Rank: 2) which is currently maintenance but visible at google cache, game review by M.İhsan Tatari on oyungezer (Turkish, Also Printed, Alexa Rank: 34818 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Ceyda Doğan on merlininkazani (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 18095 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Engin Yüksel on teknolojioku (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 16365 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game news on indir.com (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 27852 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on frpnet.net (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 170997 , Page Rank: 4).
There absolutely could be more listings, news or articles added, but when all the information provided is consireded, I believe this game deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. Knost05 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) — Knost05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alexa and Page Rank don't matter. The
conflict of interest that you should have divulged immediately. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I absolutely believe that there are substantial articles proving that this game is substantial enough in importance that it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. According to
WP:RELIABLE , news organizations can be counted as reliable. References siliconera, browsergamez, techshout, teknolojioku, 07073 are counted as news sites within Google, who don't count a site as a legitimate news site lightly, meaning these sites have been found worthy and have the authority to be counted as news sites. Indiedb and Baixaki also have a lot of references from websites that are counted as legitimate news sites on Google. Also, MonsterMMORPG being listed at IGN, Engadget, Absolute_Games, GameSpot means this game was noteable enough to get their attenion and get added to their websites by staff members. This is important because they don't simply add every game to their listings, especially Indie games. Add to the list onrpg editors as they have a great history with game journalism. Now, looking into Alexa and PageRank, I believe they do matter. Alexa rank is an important aspect to legitimize if a site has authority/is respected or not. If these sites were not an authority on their subject, they would not get the amount of visitors needed to legitimize it as an authority on Alexa. And per the Wikipedia page on PageRank "PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to determine a rough estimate of how important the website is." If properly investigated, I believe that you will find that none of these references are fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
As for my involvement with MonsterMMORPG, I did not know that I needed to divulge whether or not I played this game as I thought this was a discussion about the merits of MonsterMMORPG and not a closed off back and forth between current Wikipedia editors. Who I am to MonsterMMORPG shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the references are evaluated on their own merits. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which they were. And the implications of a
⨹ 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not a "closed-off debate", you're free to participate, you're just supposed to disclose your connections to the subject too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:Be..anyone delete claim why? Because Be..anyone is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Be..anyone I found that he published an article which has little to no credibility references which makes article definitely does not pass noteability threshold Microsoft_Download_Manager. Even though I did not notice any major problem with categorization, recategorize seems reasonable option when category number is taken into consideration FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with
WP:RS problems. For example Beauty_Brands which i strongly believe her own company, has 1 404 returning references and 3 nothing notable references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you need to keep this discussion about the article in question and not go after articles that editors have worked on. There is no bias. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - Its seems the source-hunting has had an opposite effect on me this time - the coverage found so far is extremely weak, with most of it either not meeting standards at
    significant coverage. When these bad sources are stripped away, there's hardly anything left, in sources or source-able content. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with
WP:RS problems. For example Danganronpa:_Unlimited_Battle has little to nothing, very thin references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
That's got to be one of the most bizarre
consensus for being usable in the capacity that I used them. And there's more that have popped up since then that can be added to the article. So your accusations are both irrelevant and flawed conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:FreeRangeFrog why? Because FreeRangeFrog is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. An example article written by FreeRangeFrog and it has very little to none references Tiefer. According to him/her Tiefer article is noteable while this article is not which clearly displays biased decision FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You cannot point to another article and argue for retention based on that. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jéské Couriano I don't see any other way how to show bias going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs)
The only bias I can see is from the
SPA posting rebuttals to every single delete vote which have no basis in Wikipedia's policies while hurling accusations of bias. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, exactly. Because there is no bias going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disruptive
single-purpose account.
  • Strong Keep. To be able to fairly critisize this article I read a lot of pages and other articles. After evaluating backlinks and all claims here, I concluded that this article by far surpasses overall Wikipedia Video Games articles noteability threshold. I agree with Salvidrim! and Knost05. I feel that there is an extreme bias going on at this discussion. It feels like some editors contacting others to vote for delete. Critiques are being made with bias. At the top of this page I am quoting written text "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The bold part clearly shows the bias going on here. I could not resist but to register and make an argument because I can not bear unfairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The article is listed here as part of a general list of
Articles for creation submissions that have subsequently been nominated for deletion. That's how I found out about it, though it's important to note that any article going through those processes will be listed there. PS: FanOfNaruto has been indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sources
  1. Silicon Era. SE is a reliable source, but this is an interview which is sort of depreciated as a source. I personally don't think that interviews should necessarily be seen as a SPS unless it's one of those scenarios where the post is a guest post by the developer or where there isn't really any real back and forth with the interviewer. There's enough meat to this in the content before the interview to where I'd consider it usable.
  2. Oyungezer. From what I can see, this does have an editorial staff per this page and the article was written by a staff member, which is a bonus. As far as content goes, the article does give off some PR vibes but ultimately seems to be an overview of the game. I'd consider this usable as a RS.
  3. Haber Import. This comes across strongly like it's taken from a press release, either partially or fully. It's not marked as a press release (these are primary sources and cannot show notability) but it also lacks a clear author and I can't really find anything on the website to show that there's any editorial oversight. There is a page of authors, but nothing to show their credentials or even that they were the author of this piece. I wouldn't count this as a RS.
  4. Game4V. This one is iffy. The page looks nice and it's an outright review, which would be helpful, but I can't find anything on there about editorial oversight. This page does sort of give the impression that they have editors, but none of it is clear. Unfortunately since they don't have that posted, I have to err on the side of caution here and say that it wouldn't be usable offhand unless someone can find something more definitive on the website.
  5. Merlin'in Kazanı. This one is similar to the previous one in that there are things like this that give off the impression that there's an editorial process but no real guarantee that there is one. However that's sort of a moot point here since this post is so brief that it's essentially a
    WP:TRIVIAL
    source and not one that would give notability.
  6. Teknoloji Oku. This has the same issue with verifying the editorial oversight. This is really what does in most websites. Even if it looks fairly obvious that the page has an editorial board, it has to be verified. Sometimes this can be bypassed if the site is especially well known but this is kind of what harms a lot of foreign language websites- they're usually not known on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should accept the websites based on the fact that there is a language bias on Wikipedia, just that this can be a barrier for finding sources.
  7. Engadget. The site is a RS, but this is an interview. It's mostly filled with responses by the developer, so this runs a little afoul of the whole SPS. Personally I do find interviews to be an indication of notability, but I don't think that they should be the only sources.
Ultimately what we have here are three usable sources: Engadget, Silicon Era, and Oyungezer. Two of them are interviews and Oyungezer is a little iffy since it looks to be somewhat based on a press release and doesn't appear to be a review of the game itself per se. It's enough to where I can see arguments for a weak keep, but it really should have more/better sourcing than this if it is kept- otherwise it will likely get challenged and nominated for deletion again.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I've posted this response two other places, but I wanted to make sure it was seen by the people in this discussion as well. My relation to the game is that I'm a Chat Master for it's chat function and I play the game. I wasn't asked to create an account to argue this point I was asked to go and fix it up as the person that created it did a pretty poor job. When I went to the page to edit it I saw the Delete Nomination at which point I weighed in. I didn't think I needed to state my direct relation to the game, but after reading

(｡◕‿◕｡)
explanation I understand why this might have been of importance.

'I would like to apologize for my role in the back and forth of it all, but I do stand by my opinion. I believe that this game is getting railroaded when it has a legitimate reason to be added to English Wikipedia. When looking at some other games, as the much more aggressive/unprofessional user added under me, it seems your editors aren't as strict.

'Either way, I understand that as it is the page is lacking, but it does have some articles that would count as references and I hope the page gets a weak keep at the very least so that I have an opportunity to edit it and get it up to snuff.

'Thanks for your time, Knost05 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING. The Superonline Iletisim Hizmetleri user 176.233.41.152 has been energetically canvassing people to come here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • More canvassing:
    ⨹ 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I got an invitation by some ip person to come here as a neutral party. I am a bit puzzled by a comment user @Woodrar made. "The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles." May I ask how you would know whether a writer's byline was indeed his true birth given name or a psuedonym? Thanks if you get a moment to answer that. Until then, Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't know for sure, but usually you can take a pretty good guess based on what the name is. If the person writes by the name of "Don Johnson" and/or is known outside of the website by such a name, then its likely their name. If they go by "Doombringer1987", you make a pretty good guess that's not they're real name. Many video game and music websites allow any old person to create an account with any old name and let them write whatever they want. This sort of content fails
notability of a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Canvassed by new user (assuming same IP entity), I agree with the above statement that it should be moved out of the mainspace and put in the draft namespace. ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has enough references, is not orphan, instead of being loosing the time, you should be improving this article.--P2prules (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out with sources you find to be both reliable and cover the subject in significant detail? Also, not being an orphan is hardly a testament to being notable. Virtually any article can linked to if you try hard enough, notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When/If this is moved to draft may I start adding to it and cleaning it up? Thank you for your time everyone, I'm sorry some have made this a less than easy discussion.Knost05 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knost05, you should start cleaning it up now; if the article really can be salvaged (I'm still hedging my bets) then it should be improved before the AfD closes. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Of course, I'll get on it as soon as possible. Thank you again everyone for your time and patience. Knost05 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed. :l By the IP listed above. However, I don't exactly see any reason to delete the article, so... Weak Keep? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, this (possible sock-puppeteer) canvasser is starting to grind my gears. Speedy Delete per G11. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I was notified about this by the mad canvasser, I see no reason not to offer neutral input.
The Siliconera bit is good, as listed at
RS. That's two good sources (although they're both interviews, which makes me a little hesitant, but not enough to change my !vote), and I unfortunately don't know Turkish to be able to do anything more than speculate based on the structure of the rest. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WPVG rated Siliconera as having
⨹ 12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, interviews by reliable sources can contribute to notability. While not strictly secondary, they aren't strictly primary either - some level of fact-checking of things said in the interview will occur at quality publications. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (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.

April 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike Matei

AfDs for this article:
Mike Matei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was an article under this name many years ago that was deleted. Assuming this is the same person, he has certainly become much more notable since then, but it is still not clear that notability has been established. This was suggested as a ProD and was rejected after having been endorsed by a second editor (neither of whom was me), and I feel that it should go to full AfD to settle the matter. It seems to me that

WP:TOOSOON at best. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (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.

April 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

James & Mike Mondays

James & Mike Mondays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was nominated for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag because I didn't think that it fit the criteria and it deserved to go to a full AfD debate. The few references provided for the article are all in non-notable sources. Personally, I think this show is non-notable outside of

Cinemassacre Productions and it should perhaps just be merged in as a subsection there if it is not deleted outright. Note also that there is an (unreferenced) "List of James & Mike Mondays episodes" article as well. Also note that this has been mentioned on their website [1], so there is likely to be an influx of fans commenting here (as can currently be seen on the article's Talk page). Bueller 007 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - The article you referred to has no bearing on this page. Please provide a Wikipedia valid argument to support the deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (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 delete. The "weak keep" opinions are weak indeed, and one of them ultimately supports deletion.  Sandstein  20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge and Hampshire

Lozenge and Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:N. Google doesn't bring up any third-party sources, has not been mentioned in any relevant video game news outlet. Soetermans. T / C 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep-Could use some improvement. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping? Unless
WP:RS significant coverage can be found, there is nothing to improve.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
What it needs is secondary source coverage (
⨹ 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I found a somewhat descriptive entry for MobyGames for one of the series' games I know MobyGames is unreliable as it relies on user-submitted content, but that was the only decent description I could find. The game looks pretty awful for December 2000. What I don't understand is that it's a fairly contemporary game series and there are almost no sources for it. I've seen other black holes for some games on the internet but a search from the VG custom search engine finds nothing on the series. Somebody asked what happened to Lozenge and Hampshire but I can see why this is up for deletion if there are no sources. I don't think this is salvagable, so sadly I would support a deletion unless something comes up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2015 (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.

April 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be the contant is notable but its not so cut and dried that this needs a standalone article. I'd suggest a merge proposal would be a better vehicle then AFD to decide that.

Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Shield Knight

Shield Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character is a non-notable secondary character of a single-game indie series. I suggest either deletion or redirection to Shovel Knight. Pyrotle {T/C} 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, decent sources are used to describe the character's conception and reception, and integrating those (or even just the conception and creation-section) into the Shovel Knight article would make that article focus on her character in too much integrate detail. ~Mable (chat) 05:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has 7 different secondary sources and 2 of which are reliable in the field, only source primary is the kick starter page itself but that is pretty minor in the makeup of the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    ⨹ 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2015 (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 redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games . j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix & Friends

Asterix & Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not

talk) 03:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Or redirect it to
talk) 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games and list it there, as with all the other Asterix games not notable enough for their own articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list of character games, though I think it'd be nicer to link to
    ⨹ 22:21, 8 April 2015 (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 delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOTgreal

WOTgreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A video game engine that seems to have little notability and the article has been tagged for notability for 7 years now. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may or may not be notable, but "not having been improved for 7 years" is not a reason for deletion -- and neither is being "defunct" DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True that isn't a reason for a afd-but I was trying to think of something to say beyond not being notable, but yes I do agree being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging Randomran who tagged this for notability and I've left a message at Wikiproject Computing. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not my area of expertise, but I was surprised there weren't more Ghits. It definitely exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets
    WP:GNG. A possible redirect target would be Unreal#See also, where companies like this, including WOTgreal, are listed. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 22:14, 8 April 2015 (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 delete. North America1000 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Networks

Aryan Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company with no evidence of notability, a Google search doesn't come up with anything either. All sources appear to be self-published. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (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.

April 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy redirect to

⨹ 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Volcanion (Pokémon)

Volcanion (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, run of the mill Pokemon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect and wondering why I didn't think of that...(embarassed). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to some "list of..." type article, whatever is out there that fits. The Wikipedia is not a Pokedex, esp for subjects that have no received direct coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the applicable list of Pokémon. Zero sources to establish notability. ~Mable (chat) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    ⨹ 18:07, 9 April 2015 (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 redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Paid exclusivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sometimes, the right answer is to bite the newbie and delete the article. When the original content was seemingly written by a petulant child, the wrong answer is to try and polish it. This article is essentially a POV-fork to

console exclusivity
and should just be deleted and redirected.

"Paid exclusivity" is not a term used anywhere but in forums populated by gamers with no understanding of business, which is why the earliest example cited dates from only 2007. In media where the most vocal aren't petulant children, people generally understand that you have to pay for exclusivity agreements, so "paid exclusivity" is not a term used when discussing things like

n 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Gene that there is some content here that could go nicely in
    Console exclusivity. "Paid exclusivity" when not focused on just consoles is too broad of a concept. it could contain everything from intellectual properties to tariffs. What this article is really about is Console exclusivity ( which doesn't have a section for paid exclusivity so it would make the article better for the reader ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 12 April 2015 (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.

March 31 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Nakon 06:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2K (Mobile Game)

WWE 2K (Mobile Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As an article that says nothing about this game other than its release date, price and key features it is

talk) 06:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Of course the original copyrighted text was re-inserted by the original author including the pricing info - removed again but I suspect it will be put back.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a crystal ball, including spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real content beyond advert for a product yet to be released. No indication that this is notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:CRYSTAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2015 (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.

March 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards world

Wizards world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable sources for this game, and article is little more than a

WP:GAMEGUIDE. Could be the case that references are in Russian, but I couldn't find any. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, article topic lacks
    ⨹ 05:02, 14 April 2015 (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.

March 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Nakon 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Game Publishing

Infinite Game Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

just a publisher, but they are not the original publisher of any of the three items listed. , just a subsequent owner of the rights who no longer holds them DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    ⨹ 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (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 delete. North America1000 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbling Cat

Stumbling Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of

t@lk to M£ 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources in use are not
⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete failing
    WP:NCORP. RikuKat's attempt is appreciated morally here, but a business registration (not in-depth by nature, only proves existence) and a link to a non-notable previous project by one of the founders is far from satisfying the notability requirements. It is unsurprisingly hard to establish notability when the company's only product listed in the article has still not confirmed its release date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ah
notability is not inherited just by sharing common key people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potions: A Curious Tale

Potions: A Curious Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article with no evidence of

t@lk to M£ 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 27 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Evryware. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dude

AfDs for this article:
Space Dude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, no good sourcing found. Previously kept in 2006 due to notability of developer but I'm not finding anything useful. Notability is

WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to developer (
    ⨹ 05:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:50, 3 April 2015 (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 delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea (video game)

Dead Sea (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not

talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tech in Asia's editorial policy says that every article is run past an editor, though they also want to break stories within minutes, so it's unclear what degree of oversight is had. I'd say it's gray in the
⨹ 08:50, 29 March 2015 (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.

March 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Melissa Batten

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable domestic violence (murder-suicide) case involving non-notable persons. No significant coverage beyond local news, no legal precedents. Fails

n 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage is a bit light, but it's still there. The crime was highlighted by The New York Times in an article about murder-suicides related to domestic violence, and they specifically mentioned that it "made headlines". This seems to be an implicit statement of notability on their part. I can see how people would argue that it's perhaps more applicable to Wikinews, but I think it squeaks by the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agree with opening (
    hahnch). Notability is questionable here; but the point is that victims of this domestic violence and their lives were not so domestic. Again, agree over joint biography goof - titles and POV should be different. However, if the event has been covered by significant sources and had notable impact on relevant communities - it might be legible as article. I recommend search and presentation of sources noting enduring effects; or incorporation of information into appropriate (possibly to be created) article, timeline or list. Fakedeeps (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - covers barely WP:CRIME and WP:GNG but still it is within the treshold for inclusion. That is my view.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The situation was highlighted by the NYtimes as a case where gun control laws overshadow rights of victims of domestic victims (in 2013), and was cited by a WA state legislator in the passage of a 2014 state gun control law that involved domestic violence [11]. (in addition to the above aspects). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Despite the NYTimes and Fortune sources above, I'm reiterating my stance in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'd expect significantly more coverage of a news event for it to be considered in an encyclopedia, I'd expect national sources to dedicate articles to the crime, not have a few paragraph on it half-way down on a page filled with other murders. Had it been a cultural object, such as a video game, we'd expect previews, reviews and interviews in national-level publications - we have none of this here. -

n 21:54, 31 March 2015 (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.

March 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently minor clone of last year's

McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Because it's just one of hundreds of unremarkable clones of 2048, and doesn't even have a single secondary source. --
McGeddon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: Ugh. There are countless forks of the game. Probably hundreds referred to as 'galaxy edition' alone. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  06:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (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.

March 22 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA1000 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaiMai

MaiMai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability

ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently the article's subject is notable, and there are now a couple of sources.

ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Which of those 70 footnotes are reliable? Does the zhwp's DYK process include source vetting? Otherwise I don't see why those arguments are pertinent. czar 
⨹ 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsterball (video game)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability.

ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of current condition, burden is on the nominator to look for sources
    ⨹ 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 12:17, 29 March 2015 (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Eggy That Could

The Little Eggy That Could (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this video game. bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 02:08, 23 March 2015 (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.

March 21 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. "What's the harm if kept" isn't an accepted argument here. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Middleton

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NBIO with only reliable source being the BBC article. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 201reser 5 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't know what GNG/NBIO are, but what is the harm if this article is preserved? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General notability guideline and Notability (people). I suggest you read them carefully. They are the basis on which it will be decided whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "What is the harm?" is one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Voceditenore: In real life I know not to drive on the wrong side of the street without having to read reams text. Your miles may vary, but in my book any policies/guidelines that take weeks to fully understand cannot be effectively enforced.
Also, just because someone does not know all the acronyms used at Wikipeida by heart does not make them less worthy of an opinion. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, it takes some time to learn the rules/policies of the website, and I typically recommend that editors/nominators link to them in their comments so people can read up on what they're trying to say, but that being said, you not knowing them isn't really a good rationale or defense for your stance either. That's like threatening to sue someone, and when they ask you what law they broke, and you saying "Well, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't typically need to be in my daily life." I don't mean to be mean here, but you're they one who made the initial statement without the prior knowledge here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While other commenters have provided more compelling deletion reasons, I am inclined to reprimand
WP:JUSTAPOLICY and hope he does better next time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Wouldnt call the CSM one significant. It's a few sentences on a top ten list. It's literally 1/10th of an article about him ... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 28 March 2015 (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.

March 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skull & Crossbones

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails

WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fixed the mobygames link to the page, added the arcade cabinet manual (on archive.org), and I was able to find a few sources of varying quality online if someone would like to put it into the page: Reviews: [20][21] [22] [23] Other stuff: [24] ― Padenton|✉   01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
⨹ 04:10, 26 March 2015 (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 no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles

List of Humble Bundles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from
    WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of
    WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t
    )
  • It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of
    WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced
    directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at
      WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [25]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they ought to be. It's a
    WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (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.

March 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy delete

⨹ 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

LightON ~ enlight the enigma

LightON ~ enlight the enigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game; fails

WP:GNG; very little coverage. Game developer has no article, so merging isn't an option. Esquivalience t 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the page about lightON game to improve it's visibility in the web search. The content that I included is basic, but currently there's not much more to include. I hope the game will become notable some day, so let's give it a chance. Amilosavljevic77 07:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Fox cast members

List of Star Fox cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability by itself, voice actors for notable characters are already mentioned at List of Star Fox characters. Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 16 March 2015 (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.

March 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jocuri-unity3d.com

Jocuri-unity3d.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable web. Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Should have been speedied a LONG time ago. smileguy91Need to talk? 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:20, 14 March 2015 (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.

March 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. JodyB talk 13:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Game Studios

Valhalla Game Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should have been speedily deleted for no indication of significance. However an IP (likely just the original author logged out) contested the speedy for the following reason: 218 results on google news in English, 303 results in Japanese . 60 employees according to the official website. As we know, that statement isn't enough to establish

WP:N, but technically since it was contested by "another user" we will have to go through AfD. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that the subject of this article satisfies the
    basic notability criteria. Notability is not inherited by one of its employees being independently notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I agree that the game without a doubt has more than enough coverage, the problem is does the company? Try finding a single source about Valhalla that isn't just talking about the release of that game with a mention as to Valhalla as the creator. I guess I could see the argument that at this time, that game is what defines the company and any source talking about the game could also be considered "extensive coverage" for the studio, I guess I'm on the fence about it now. I'll wait and see what others have to say that might sway me one direction or the other, but my mind is more open to keeping this article than it was before. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reasonable of you; your analysis is pretty spot on. St★lwart111 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the person who reinstated the article and I'm not the author of the original article. Nice insinuating there though - if you know you're on unsteady grounds, focus less on facts and instead attempt smear tacticts. The fact that Valhalla have been around for 6 years and have received a lot of coverage in both Japanese and English tells me they are bigger than their founder. They/their games have been mentionde in Famitsu a bunch of times, I get 76 googits for site:famitsu.com "ヴァルハラゲームスタジオ". To claim they're not notable seems ridiculous.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There's a misunderstanding here, btw. I didn't contend the speedy deletion, I restored an old version of the page which had a "speedy deletion" tag (and was subsequently made a redirect to one of the foudners). When I realized I had included the tag by mistake, I made a 2nd edit to remove it.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First of all I said "likely the original author" not "definitely the original author." There's a big difference, and anyone looking at the edit history can see why I might reasonably suspect that. Second, I would be more inclined to believe you if multiple socks hadn't already edited the page and caused an admin to semi-protect it, and then the first IP (you) to edit the article after the protection expired reverts the community consensus redirect and puts back all the old info that was repeatedly nominated for speedy/changed into a redirect by several other editors and admins. Finally, your first contributions to Wikipedia were to undo a redirect, and include and edit summary on Valhalla Game Studios? Obviously this is not the first time you've edited on Wikipedia. So instead of continued edit warring in the article that has happened historically I brought it to AfD where a conclusive consensus could be reached by the community, there is no reason for you to take offense to it. If you bothered to read the previous comments in the AfD you would see that I have changed my view and think they article may be worth keeping. Although I still have some
WP:TOOSOON concerns, either way, there is no reason for you to come here and attack my nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough coverage to justify an article, as several aspects of the company have been covered by many sources. (Itagaki's leaving his prior company to start this one up, the problems with THQ's closure, Nintendo working with the company to save one of its projects, etc. The company may not have any game output, but they've certainly been through a lot, and it's been documented by third party reliable sources. There's enough to write an article here, it just needs a lot of cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 18 March 2015 (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.

March 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rally-Sport MS-DOS

Rally-Sport MS-DOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There maybe some old computer mags that reviewed this game that might give it some notability. However if this game had any lasting significance you would think there would be a least some sources online beyond
    WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Games

Sex Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2015 (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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Lian Zhan Shi

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looking around for other sources "Honest and Upright Warrior" and "Qinglian Zhanshi" also turn up some results, but still not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename "Incorruptible Warrior", its English title (after the AfD ends). A sampling from LexisNexis:
  • "China puts faith in video game to spread anti-corruption message." The Irish Times. August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Cyberspace opens new front in war on graft." South China Morning Post. August 1, 2007 Wednesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese whistleblowers rush to expose corruption." The Irish Times. December 20, 2007 Thursday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "Chinese hunt corrupt officials - by computer." The Daily Telegraph (LONDON). August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
  • "China's first anti-corruption online game shut down after less than a month." BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring. August 28, 2007 Tuesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
which are all about the game, in depth. Ping me if you need to see them as a PDF. There are more sources on LexisNexis, too. This also doesn't include the WSJ and Reuters articles currently referenced in the WP article:
All in all, should be more than enough to establish notability and to write a sizable article. czar 
⨹ 15:46, 9 March 2015 (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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wispin

Wispin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic actually does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites
⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This game has enough sources to meet the
⨹ 18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game has only passing mentions at the references listed and a few reviews. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews from
⨹ 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XSquare

XSquare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Carnaval

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it's worth noting that Metacritic does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites
⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Plumo

Mango Plumo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and don't have any "significant" coverage.

talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (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.

March 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Pokémon#Fan community . Overall, there is consensus that Bulbapedia is not notable enough for an article. A selective merge has already been performed and there is a rough consensus to redirect/merge to that location anyways. As such, I'll redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbapedia

AfDs for this article:
Bulbapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this website. Almost entirely sourced by the website itself. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for the mess earlier which I've now fixed - Technically "3" is incorrect as it should be "3rd nomination" but the prev AFD was in 2005 hence prev being "2" and I'd rather not flaff around with historical stuff like that so figured it was best I name this 3. Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey thanks, I was a little confused when I saw three previous nominations up here, but nothing on the talk page. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome :), I assume no one used the closing tool in 2005 so I'd say they probably forgot to add the closes, Meh who knows , Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, it looks like there are 2-3 valid sources, but one is a book and the others are dead links... ansh666 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Konveyor Belt: Not saying if they're good or bad, just that I can't access any of them to assess whether they are actually reliable and not trivial/passing mentions. ansh666 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree with that, but the DRVs in 2009, 2010, 2011 said "endorse the delete" every time. Still, I'm no grumpy deletionist, if somebody can improve the article and prove me to be completely and utterly wrong, that would be great! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that DRV isn't AfD - it's for contesting the procedure of a close, not the outcome of a close. Every time, nobody found anything wrong with the process to overturn it, nor did anyone provide any new reliable sources (though one guy tried really really hard, apparently). Either way, DRV refers back to the old article which was deleted (yes, in 2005, a lot has changed since then), so is irrelevant here. ansh666 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm happy to downgrade to a straight "delete" ... but I can't go any further than that. I've dug into book sources and the best I can muster is things like this which is a one-sentence mention in a self-published source. That's just not enough to save the article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
⨹ 16:33, 11 March 2015 (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.

March 7 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Para Con

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the article's tone and style are problems, but considering the amount of coverage to meet
    WP:ORG
    we might think it more a matter for clean-up than for deletion. 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But when you check Google News, you see only 24 hits (13, in effect), while the 16k normal Google hits boil down to a mere 120 hits. The Banner talk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does the article need clean-up? Yes. Does it need footnotes instead of a list of citations? Of course. Should an editor go in with a chainsaw and prune those giant lists of names? You bet. But does the article cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with cited in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. Also yes, and that's why it should be kept. (And then fixed.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2015 (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 delete. Nakon 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Communications

Kinetic Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "global attention" consists of minor notices. " DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Confusingly enough there are companies with the same name in Birmingham UK (PR firm) and India (circuit boards). From this, it seems that this company has mainly local clients, which is fine but only local coverage. Their new office got a lot of attention, but I would rather credit that to the architect. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:12, 15 March 2015 (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.

March 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflec Beat

Reflec Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Reflec Beat Limelight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Reflec Beat Colette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Reflec Beat Groovin'!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is notable, but the article has spiralled into an

WP:TNT and a complete rewrite. Also bundling its three sequels, being no better. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) 05:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Looking back, a merger might be better here (notable enough as a series). Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the comments. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Merger discussion started at Talk:Reflec Beat#Merger proposal. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:08, 5 March 2015 (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 delete. JodyB talk 22:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing games

Breathing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be a remarkable product. A search failed to find any reliable coverage. I could have nominated it for A7, but I don't think A7 applies to products.

csdnew 10:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for you remark, noting that "breathing games" are not remarkable enough of a product to be discussed on wikipedia. Given the impact regular video games have on human health and education I would like to encourage you to reconsider this remark. Additionally you have failed to find a reliable coverage and I'd like to ask you which keyword searches you searched for and on which search engine? There seems to be enough coverage available, but we have not yet referenced it appropriately. Please do reply as we are working hard on this article and we would appreciate it not being deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leskovsek (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced article that fails to credibly establish any form of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 01:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. There is an academic article on the topic at entitled "Breathe: A Game to Motivate the Adherence of Breathing Exercises" that was published by Belinda Lange et al. in the Journal of Physical Therapy Education (Vol.25, No.1. Winter 2011).
  2. This paper was predated by a 2009 IEEE presentation by Lange as well,
  3. a 2008 paper by Krestina L. Amon and Andrew Campbell entitled "Can Children with AD/HD Learn Relaxation and Breathing Techniques through Biofeedback Video Games?" published in the Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology Vol. 8, and
  4. a 2003 paper by John Sharry et al. entitled "Relax To Win Treating children with anxiety problems with a biofeedback video game" that was published in Eisteach Vol.2.
I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll try to make a more thorough search later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhh, the journal article looks like it's an attempt to make breathing exercises fun, not an article about video games that use breathing as a controller. Not sure about the last two, but I think they might be better suited to biofeedback. I guess this article could be rewritten as "biofeedback in video games" instead of an ad for a specific series of games made by Breathing Labs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does sound good to me, NinjaRobotPirate. I missed the fact that this article seems to be written about only the Breathing Labs products. I'll strike my "keep" for now, but I think an article could probably be written on the topic of breath-controlled games based on the sources that are out there. -Thibbs (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2015 (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.

March 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to FIFA 14#Ultimate Team. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 14 Ultimate Team

FIFA 14 Ultimate Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NOTABLE, is written like a game guide and is unsourced. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (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.

February 28 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. czar 

⨹ 16:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

PoBros Inc.

PoBros Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

Wikipedia:CORP. The article is sourced with questionable sources, primary sources and reviews or articles about the games made by the company. Parts of the article also comes off as advertising for the company too. GamerPro64 22:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does look to fail
    WP:CORPDEPTH. It would furthermore be pretty rare for a developer to have an article before any of its software/products/games (not that that's a requirement). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage by independent reliable sources; in a search I found only a press relelase. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 00:52, 8 March 2015 (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 delete. Nakon 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jitter Clicking

Jitter Clicking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced gaming phenomenon. smileguy91Need to talk? 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (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.

February 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was no consensus. I can't find consensus for deletion, but significant discussion arose around the fact Calculords may be more notable than Seanbaby himself, and a repurposing of the article to focus on the apparently notable game might be a solution (which can be discussed on the talk page since it is not deletion). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seanbaby

AfDs for this article:
Seanbaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer/personality; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His game Calculords seems to have quite a bit of coverage here, and isn't mentioned in the article. It should probably be expanded to include that using these refs. Artw (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these sources seem to be significant coverage of the game, not its creator. Yes, there are questions/answers about himself, but it's still hardly enough coverage to merit an article, in my view.. --
Wikipedical (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (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.

February 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeBlock

OrangeBlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Article was tagged as A7, however A7 does not apply to products or services. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence provided or to be found to support notability. There may be a reason for this: article claims that it "has over 100 downloads". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A
    notable. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2015 (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.

February 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Valor Victory Gaming

Vision Valor Victory Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many of the articles linked to are no longer valid, this page has only been updated several times in over a year and a half, visiting the website shows they only have one active team in the game Fifa. Team has only 1 Lan accomplishment in the last 2 years and several since 2012. All of the collaborations section links to articles that are not valid. AcePuppy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough third party coverage to meet the
    WP:GNG. It seems some of its members sometimes contribute to a "geek themed" blog, but that's them writing, not articles covering them, that doesn't help their case for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (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.

February 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alexander (journalist)

Leigh Alexander (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there is a large body of work from the subject, coverage about her by reliable secondary sources is self-generated to near non-existent. Fails

WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the subject of dedicated works, but an easy pass of
    WP:JOURNALIST
    #1—widely cited either for her reporting or as an authority in gaming:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/21/7413619/2014-in-review-the-year-that-sucked
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/3/5862916/snowpiercer-bioshock-infinite
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/19/4445018/games-for-change-2013-keynote-speakers-leigh-alexander-jesse-schell
http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/14/3875420/video-game-violence
http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/28/4155650/women-in-the-gaming-industry-share-their-number-one-reason-to-be-in
http://www.slidetoplay.com/news/gaming-and-tech-memoir-breathing-machine-now-available/ "an esteemed games and culture critic whose work has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The Atlantic, and many other places"
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/19/the-rps-electronic-wireless-leigh-alexander/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/31/the-electronic-wireless-leigh-alexander-gdc/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/08/21/red-alert-3-trailer-analysis-war-and-boobs/
http://kotaku.com/5853739/this-video-might-convince-your-doubtful-friends-that-games-can-be-art
http://kotaku.com/will-the-21st-century-be-defined-by-games-1293867009
czar 
⨹ 01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And niche, tabletop RPGs will be notable when covered in niche, tabletop RPG publications. (More like the argument's circular.) Video game journalists (in
⨹ 13:37, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to

⨹ 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Wild Games Studio

Wild Games Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organization existed for four years, made $7 million in revenues and had about 11-50 employees[30]. The only thing they are notable for is the Day One: Garry's Incident, which has its own article and the only purpose of this page is to summarize that one (a purpose already well-served by the Lede). The org does not appear to have done anything else of significance that could produce a general profile separate from the controversy page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (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.

February 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polycount

Polycount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotioanl and non-notable -- see inforbox DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article some, doing partnered contests with the 1st and 3rd most played online PC games seems noteworthy to me. [1] Polypunk (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Most played PC games on gaming platform Raptr in December 2014, by share of playing time".
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the following sources: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another lazy and unhelpful AfD rationale, I'm afraid. I suppose the comment refers to the (non-removed) mission statement in the infobox - hardly a sufficient reason for deletion. The RS coverage clearly exists: a simple Google news search reveals 286 hits for "Polycount art" and 320 for "Polycount forum". A lot are incidental mentions, but the mere fact that RS have referred their readers to something on the site hundreds of time is far from meaningless - non-notable websites are not routinely referenced in RS. The in depth coverage of the site and/or its contests found in some of those RS (such as thus links provided by Sam Walton) prove notability beyond a doubt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Shacknews, Kotaku, and PCGamer are all good, but the other sources are either first-party or unreliable. In addition, I found another PCGamer source (only this one simply talks about the Polycount Pack, never mentioning the group specifically), this from Gamasutra (some good information on the success of their mods for TF2), and this from Russian IGN (I doubt it's got anything in there, the DuckDuckGo description used "MessageBoard" in it, but if anyone knows Russian, it'd be great to know for sure). With the three aforementioned good sources in the article, we have a solid history of the project, an editorial about fan-made League of Legends art that says that Polycount was part of hosting the contest, and an article about how much was paid to the creators of the Polycount Pack. Definitely enough to work with, even though there's a lot of stuff cited to unreliable sites. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A news search reveals multiple mentions of the site, including several in
    WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I am concerned his account might have been compromised. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 17 February 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the close was challenged by the nominator; I've given my full rationale here. ansh666 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that it has also been nominated by the creator for Did You Know here. If the nomination is successful, and the article is not deleted in the meantime, it will appear on the front page but without an image as fair use images are not allowed in DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making no comment on the respective merits of this AfD, an article can not appear on DYK while an AfD is in progress. Harrias talk 12:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game has caused uproar noted by a major Indonesian newspaper '''tAD''' (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This means the game has coverage in sources broader than simply games review sites, putting it more notable than many console games which are only covered on review sites '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete for a while. Wait a week or so. It is likely to be mentioned very soon in other sources than Vice, and not only as a meme... Zezen (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. This thing already has sufficient (international) coverage for an article now, and based on how extremely over the top it is, that fame is very unlikely to fade completely. Or to put it more directly: this stupid software is probably going to make further news by actually costing lives. (I am afraid it's also likely to play into the hands of religious fundamentalists because rejection of this is one thing that basically all Muslims -- and also all serious Christians -- can agree on. But that's not relevant for whether Wikipedia should report on it. After all, Wikipedia also has articles on criminals.) But to reiterate: The notability is already there. I am just arguing why this will probably not be seen differently in retrospect 10 years from now.
    Now the images are a different matter. Not every article needs an illustration, and there is precedent for censorship for purely practical concerns such as endangering lives or just extreme indecency or sheer stupidity. Example: I once happened to be around when someone uploaded a detailed photo of a woman producing a turd. Taken from below. Removing that without discussion was in a way censorship, but was absolutely necessary and totally uncontroversial. I think the images on this article have a similar status. While nobody should feel revolted just for seeing a normal body function from an unusual perspective, this just doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. The typical reaction by Muslims, including the nice, normal and tolerant majority, but also by many other adherents of monotheistic religions will be similar. As an atheist I don't feel like that, but respecting it is still the right thing to do and is basically on the same level as not urinating in churches.
    I uninstalled or forgot how to use the scripts necessary to properly propose something for deletion, and I am not going to try doing this by hand. But I suggest that someone should propose the images for deletion. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's an image of a work — the same as Piss Christ or KKK posters or Nazi propaganda. A user who accesses this article would expect to see such an image, it's in its only acceptable place. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the only place where we even have to argue about the images, but even here they're not needed. The other things you mention have way higher notability and cultural/historical significance -- so far. (They are also each individual artifacts in a way that screenshots are not, although the entire piece of software is.) Hans Adler 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sam Walton asked for the sources that establish notability. Though some people don't like it, it's well established that notability is not related to the language in which the source is published. E.g., what is notable in Albania and in Albanian, is a priori notable for the English Wikipedia. One of the sources currently on the article is in the game review section of es:eldiario.es, an online newspaper in Spain. Another is in the global news section of the online edition of Republika, an Indonesian newspaper with a primarily Muslim readership. Yet another is in Vice, a Canadian magazine. (Fortunately the other established newspapers and magazines available online appear to be too responsible to report about this -- nothing good will come of it.) The remaining sources seem to be the typical mix of internet resources. Although this is only indirectly relevant, two of them have sufficient notability to have their own articles in either English+German or Spanish+Catalan: gulli.com and es:MeriStation. Hans Adler 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this game is garnering a lot of attention and I've seen a few reliable sources already mention it, more sources will probably come in too. Kymako (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the above keep voters: Can you provide some of the sources which establish notability? There are only three in the article currently and a google search isn't showing up any more. I suspect this may generate some coverage within the week so I'll refrain from voting right now, but without more than there currently is I'll be voting delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's predictable that if the article is deleted at this stage, it will be recreated when the game receives more attention and a backlash is provoked. Maybe the article should be transferred to user space for a time?
talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the picture makes reasonably clear what is happening.
talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe this is a naive question, but from the angle depicted how can you tell the difference between anal sex with a pig and vaginal sex with a pig? Might the image not even depict a neutral pre-coital condition before the player has selected anything? Wouldn't we need some (reliable) source to back up the claim that "Muhammad [is engaged in]
non-free image. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I've seen videos of the game. Vaginal coitus is done in the missionary position to all animals (obviously not to the men), and anal from that behind position. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion that would be better held on the article's talk page, if the article is in fact kept. The more important issue is that minor problems of this kind are not a reason for deleting the article.
talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
From The Almightey Drill's response my suspicions concerning
WP:OR seem to have been fully justified, but FreeKnowledgeCreator makes a good point that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion based on the image's caption. In fact, let the closer take note that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion at all. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith. And Also pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (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.

February 10 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM: Guard Shield

PRISM: Guard Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game. A web search turns up only downloads, Amazon, and Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment searches for "Prism: Threat Level Red", the title of the commercial version, do turn up some results that mention this version, but not by name. Could be worth renaming and adding that info. Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use the
    video game reliable sources custom Google search
    to establish notability:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/11/26/new-prism-for-free/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/03/11/rival-working-on-national-guard-games
Not nearly enough for an article, and no worthwhile redirect targets (dev is a redlink, likely NN[35][36]). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar 
⨹ 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking over
    Czar's sources, I'm not even seeing enough for a stub, it's just saying that there's an update for the game that no one expected and that it deals with the National Guard. If anyone knows Russian, this might be good, but it's only a single paragraph, so I doubt it'll tip the scales too much. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 23 February 2015 (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.

February 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie Pixel

Nixie Pixel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After searching, I cannot find a

Notability for web content. wL<speak·check> 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Do the refs I did add help on that matter ? Yamitatsu (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if those refs count as
living people. --wL<speak·check> 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 6 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. The meatpuppetry here is no more than a minor irritation. The votes may be in favor of "delete", but policy is not: Sergecross73's analysis of the sources indicates clearly enough that there is in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and if they're on the fence, the conclusion should be keep. The comment by Pax, though apparently controversial, is worthwhile pondering as well. One more thing: Jory should stay away from this article. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jory Prum

Jory Prum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shameless autobiography of an apparently wholly non-notable sound engineer. Sourced mostly to IMDb, YouTube, various wikis, blogs and the like. No in-depth coverage whatsoever; several of the sources cited, such as the Chicago Tribune, do not mention him at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Justlettersandnumbers is shamelessly pursuing deletion of this article based entirely on it being autobiographical. The editor sent multiple warnings as I worked on substantial revisions to the old article in my sandbox (in an effort to ensure neutral tone and provide citations for all information included) and has tried to find any excuse possible to make it appear as if the citations are not of quality. If this editor's standard was applied to other people, it would prove difficult for anyone to be considered notable or for a citation to be made that referred to modern forms of media.
Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. (This concept is accepted to such a degree that books are titled using the phrase: Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art). As such, articles like the Chicago Tribune citation Justlettersandnumbers singles out are provided as verification that the film attributed to Jory Prum did indeed appear in the festival. A further citation is provided which links to the film itself, allowing anyone to see the direct connection of Jory Prum to the achievement of having his work accepted into a highly regarded film festival. Film festivals commonly refer only to the director of a film by name, not the audio engineer.
As IMDB is considered a poor source due to its self-editability, YouTube citations were provided to verify involvement on projects such as
The Walking Dead: The Game and Broken Age
. Jory Prum was deemed notable enough by the Nordic Game Conference to be invited two years in a row to give keynotes at the major conference on video game development. The fact that one of the projects discussed in a keynote also has won 90+ Game of the Year awards and multiple awards for the voice acting/performances (which, again, are partially attributable to the invisible art of audio engineering and dialogue production), would, in many people's eyes, make for further notability.
Another YouTube citation features Ralph Eggleston, the director of the Pixar film For the Birds, accepting the Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Feature". In his acceptance speech he personally thanks "Skywalker Sound, Jory Prum, and The Riders in the Sky for their wonderful sound work". One could argue that being personally included in the same breath with the highly-acclaimed Skywalker Sound during an Oscar acceptance speech would indicate notability.
Further, Justlettersandnumbers effectively declares all wikis and blogs to be valueless as citations. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, was cited as additional verification of involvement as part of the LucasArts sound team and projects worked on during that time. It is easy to see that the Wookieepedia article on Jory Prum both verifies this information and was created in 2009 by a user who is quite obviously not Jory Prum. The other wiki/blog cited is the fan site for "The Walking Dead" series, which conducted interviews with many members of the audio and voice team responsible for the game. The page was created by Kaffe4200 and the history of that page indicates it has not been created or edited by Jory Prum.
One of the blogs cited is an interview Jory Prum's alma mater conducted regarding his involvement with "The Walking Dead: The Game" and how his studies at CalArts influenced his work. The citation is provided both to verify involvement with the project, as well as verification of attending the California Institute of the Arts and some biographical information about his mentors and focus of study.
Additionally, several Wikipedia articles refer to Jory Prum, including the article for Grim Fandango, the classic LucasArts adventure game. The Grim Fandango article points out Jory Prum's involvement in the restoration work of that classic title and cites a long-form article at Polygon, a premier video game news website. The long-form article spends about 20% of its coverage discussing the work Jory Prum performed, which was critical to the remastered edition, released in January 2015. A YouTube video is also cited in regards to this project, during which the highly respected composer Peter McConnell praises Jory Prum's work in the restoration efforts, stating "...it was a real nail-biter because, you know, all those performances were tucked away on these tapes. But we got 'em, thanks to a guy named Jory Prum, who's a genius who lives around my area, who does...just knows everything about everything technical."
Lastly, while working on the substantial revision of the article, I made efforts to discuss the neutrality, the quality of citations, and the qualification of notability with both Justlettersandnumbers and Jimfbleak, another editor. The discussion is documented on my User_talk:Jory#February_2015. It is clear that Justlettersandnumbers is preoccupied with the autobiography aspect and uninterested in the actual content, whether it is neutral, whether the article is of value, or if notability is established. Justlettersandnumbers's only qualification for notability in this case appears to be whether someone unconnected has authored the article, and therefore Justlettersandnumbers has decided the test is failed merely due to the autobiographical involvement.
I therefore rebutt Justlettersandnumbers's assertions and ask that the article be kept.Jory (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I speedied the first draft of this, but I was asked to help improve it, and since autobiographies aren't actually forbidden, I cooperated with that request. It's worth following the talk page link above to see the discussion. I did point out that although the article was probably safe from speedy deletion it could be nominated here. Because of my involvement with this article, I don't intend to vote to keep or delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is apparent that the Wikipedia editor fighting to delete the Jory Prum article, using the ID justlettersandnumbers (JLAN), is the one exhibiting, not only extreme bias, but extreme malice, in a manner which appears to be more consistent with personal vendetta than actual attempt at neutrality.
In other words, the argument for deletion of the Prum article is not a legitimate attempt to "neutralize" content in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but a biased attempt by a non-neutral individual with a personal grudge, to discredit and malign, using Wikipedia as both the weapon and the battleground, in a "shameless" ad-hominem attack.
In summary, it is the opinions as expressed by JLAN, and not the article itself, that are by Wikipedia's own definitions and guidelines, violations of Wikipedia terms and conditions. CrisCross1836 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)— CrisCross1836 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comments. I disagree with the nomination when it says "wholly non-notable" as clearly there is a little coverage of the subject. The question before us is whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. I have my doubts but, much as I distrust autobiographical writing and detest the personal attacks on the nominator above, I am not quite sure enough to vote delete. I am not familiar with the precedents. Do we have articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage? Would other articles regard those accolades as significant? One thing I am pretty sure of is that CrisCross1836 (seemingly an account registered just for this particular issue) is doing anything but helping Jory's cause by hyping up the discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to DanielRigal's question about other articles for similar people with same (or lower) levels of coverage. This is just a random selection I found of other game developers or audio engineers. (It is difficult to find any articles at all that refer to video game audio engineers, most likely due to the lack of coverage the press tends to pay to the contributions of that portion of the games industry.) Sean Clark, Michael Stemmle, Larry Ahern, Paul Wedgwood, Jeff Hickman, Joe Sparks, Howie Beno, Mike Coykendall, Niko Bolas, Steve Burke. None of these are nominated for deletion at this time. The Joe Sparks article was tagged for speedy deletion and the tag was removed in 2010 with the comment, "removed speedy tag - there are claims to significance in article". Mike Coykendall was tagged for deletion a year ago, but there is no note as to why the article was allowed to remain. Steve Burke was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was declined with the comment, "decline; asserts importance with scoring of video games". Some are clearly tagged as needing improvement or citations. None have very many quality citations. Another good article to compare to might be Jared Emerson-Johnson, a composer I have worked with on a great many projects. We have worked on projects that received awards together, and I have utilized his article as an guide for the substantial revision of mine. Also, I agree with you that CrisCross1836 is not adding to the discussion in a constructive manner. I do not feel that I have been singled out by Justlettersandnumbers; only that the rules are being applied unevenly and that citations are being cherry-picked by the editor to prove a point that is not true when viewed within a larger frame. Jory (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is
    not a valid rationale for keeping an article. All you've done is provided reasons why those other articles should, in theory, be deleted as well. Other sloppy article's not being caught yet is not a defense to keep one at a deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I was the one who nominated this article for speedy deletion (
    Wookiepedia, a link from Google Groups, YouTube videos and this as sources, along with some references that I'm unfamiliar with their reliable (e.g Lzy Gmrs) really has me believing there's a case of grasping at straws to find some sources to use for this page. GamerPro64 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Responding to
    GamerPro64's comment about certain unfamiliar or "weak" sources. The reason for the Lzy Gmrs citation is because the Golden Joystick Awards nominations data is no longer shown on the official website and most reputable news sites only include a short list, which doesn't mention the nominees for less popular categories like "Best Audio". I have now replaced that flat list from a lesser known news blog with the archive.org cache of the original website. The reason for some of the other citations you are calling into question is not so much a "grasping at straws", but out of an effort to cite information as being credible and not pulled out of thin air. For example, the NY Times link was to verify involvement with the two films listed, since IMDB is considered a weak source and one would hope the NY Times and All Media Guide (which are not user editable) would be considered stronger. The Google Groups citation was to verify the claim of having worked at Jim Henson's Creature Shop. I was not given screen credit for the work I did on a film while I was there and the only online verification I could source was a thread relating to work I had been performing with the Acorn Computer-based proprietary Henson Puppet Control System at the time. I realize that particular citation is flimsy, and if it were to be removed, then there would be no way (apart from my resume and from anecdotes of others I worked with) that I actually did work there. Of course, it is far less notable than having done signature sound design for a PIxar film and being thanked in the director's acceptance speech, and could easily be removed if it is considered too weak to include in the biography. I'm unclear why a YouTube video that contains a third party discussing work the subject did or verifies involvement in a project is considered weak sourcing. There were also two books cited, one published by Pixar, and the other by Oxford University; do those sources not qualify as strong and indicative of notability? Jory (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep * Without being a game buff, I have always been interested in sound engineering. This is not exactly a high profile profession, and if anyone tells me they know the name of the team behind "Amadeus" or "Black Hawk Down", I'll be the first to call on their b.s. So, any references on "notability" are not only biased, but also very subjective. I think it would take someone really dedicated to the Foley sound effects or sound engineering in general to be able to name team members, even from highly acclaimed films. Returning to the topic at hand, I was quite taken with the in depth article on Polygon regarding the restoration technique for Grim Fandango and it made me want to read up more on the game itself and the crazy people who were involved in that particular task. It would be a shame to have the little information available scrapped entirely because of this controversy...RazvraTina (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— RazvraTina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and this is the first for six years. [reply]
  • Keep It seems to me to be a well cited and neutral article about an audio designer that has done a lot of important work on several big titles in both games and animation production. When you see people get mentioned by name in articles about projects like Grim Fandango, Sam and Max, For The birds, (or oscar acceptance speeches for that matter,) you would really like your google search to return a well made wiki article to you for more information.SteepMountain (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— SteepMountain (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone supply more sources that cover the subject, Jory Porum, in significant detail? Outside of the Polygon source, every single one I've decided to spot-check from the article either mentioned him very briefly in passing, or not at all. It needs to discuss him in
    significant detail for him to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.. Without providing more actual proof, all these editors coming out to say it's "a well sourced article" are going to be ignored, because it's a baseless claim. You need to prove what you're actually saying. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Here are some of the more thorough sources:
* Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango (Polygon)
* From Scarface to Simlish (Mix Magazine)
* The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) (VG newspaper)
* The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work (24700: News from California Institute of the Arts)
* The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum (The Walking Dead Wiki)
* Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper)
* StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine)
* What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine)
* The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video)
* The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7)
It is challenging for audio engineers to get more than a mention (if even that much) in the media. Most of the time, audio engineers are just the butt of everyone's jokes, not real news or features.
Most of the other citations on the article are merely support for factual data, since Wikipedia requires citations for all information. Jory (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources:
  1. Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango - Sourced deemed reliable by consensus at
    WP:VG/S
    . While Prum is not necessarily the main things being discussed in it, it does discuss him in significant detail. Good source.
  2. From Scarface to Simlish - I'm not familiar with the website, but looking it over, I didn't find anything that made me think it would be unreliable. Much like the Polygon source, he is not the main subject, but is discussed in some detail. Good source
  3. The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) - I can't read Norwegian, but his name is mentioned 11 times through the article, its a relative long piece, and a photo of him at the top as the main photo, so it appears to cover him in detail. Probably reliable.
  4. The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work - Appears to be a non-notable blog from some sort of educational center. Clicking on the author just gave a link to "other things he posted", no info on credentials. Probably not usuable.
  5. The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum Wikis are almost always not useable - because they are open to edit by anyone, and often run by people of no real authority. Not usable.
  6. Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper) - Link wouldn't work for me, so I couldn't check it. Inconclusive.
  7. StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  8. What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
  9. The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video) -
    WP:VG/S
    doesn't have a stance on whether they're neutral or not. Interviews are generally useable for details, but not necessarily for going towards notability, because it's really more of a first party account. Inconclusive.
  10. The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7) - I'm unfamiliar with the website, and don't know Swedish. Probably not a good sign that his name is only mentioned one single time in the article. Inconclusive
I'm still on the fence on this one. Generally, its seems like 4-5 reliable sources covering the subject in detail is enough to warrant a "Keep". This one is close. I'm starting to think there could be a policy-based reason for keeping the article, unless someone can present some ways that I'm wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 If you are intending to contribute here, note that votes from Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts with few or no edits elsewhere will be disregarded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the
    notability criterion. A subject must meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or he/she/it cannot have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. The sources passionately touted above by the author-and-subject of this article do not meet the criteria of independence and reliability. Wikis, Facebook, IMDb and similar sites are neither reliable nor independent. Sergecross finds some of the references to be acceptable, and I respect his opinion, but I am less impressed by the reliability of the sources. As Jory mentioned above, "Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art." Yes, it is. Invisible professions usually do not receive the required coverage. That does not mean they get to ignore or bypass the notability requirement; it means they don't get an article. BTW I trust the closing administrator will ignore all the sockpuppet or meatpuppet "keep" votes here from single purpose accounts. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:USERG-violating sources either. I'm open to input on the remainder of the sources. I didn't see anything wrong with them, but I can't say I'm an expert in "sound production" sources or anything, so by all means let me know if I'm overlooking details of the sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Jory's shameless and ought-to-know better
    WP:COI and WP:spammy walls-of-text above are almost certainly counter-productive, but if pornstars get to keep their articles based upon winning significant industry awards, then I don't see why he can't under the same criteria. Pax 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:VG/S is undecided on if it's an RS. It's a video interview though, so it's usually considered more of a first party source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning weakest of all keeps) - This is a tough one. On one hand, there may be enough coverage to get by
    WP:TNT)? @Jory: Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. - Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to provide a venue to celebrate those professions which go under-recognized elsewhere. In fact, one of the common criticisms of Wikipedia is that when it operates according to its own rules, as a tertiary source, it reinforces the status quo (i.e. covers things already well covered). I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Rhododendrites: I appreciate your thoughts. I was not suggesting that WP should accept an article merely due to audio engineering being an invisible art; I was more intending the point that while some professions (such as acting or composing) can get heaps of media coverage and are easy to find reliable sources for, audio engineering as an invisible art is particularly challenging to get real coverage. As a professional, I've spent a great deal of time promoting my business and myself, trying to get any coverage I can. Most of these end up as press coverage of projects, though, not of the studio or person themselves. I guess the question I have is what constitutes enough coverage? If that standard is applied equally to all subjects, it certainly would exclude those who may be deemed notable in their own fields, despite not having name recognition outside of their field.
I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. I'm curious what constitutes a "horde". ;-) I see three accounts that have been flagged as being irregular editors, two of which may certainly be a single-purpose account. Jory (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I count 4, and then there's yourself, as both the subject and the article creator. (You're not quite an SPA, as you've made edits elsewhere, but you certainly have a bias/invested interest outside of building an encyclopedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 24 February 2015 (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 snow close, delete. Regardless of whatever type of article this is, it's fairly clear that the consensus is to delete. At best this is a

(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put aside your reaction to the title for the moment, because it's not exactly what it says on the tin. What this really is, rather, is a metacommentary about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the topic described in the title, sourced only to a Facebook post which wrongly suggests that we do. This is, put simply, not the kind of thing we should have an "article" about — and it shouldn't be repurposed as what its title actually suggests, because that's not the kind of thing we should have an article about either. Taking this to AFD only because there's already a declined speedy in the edit history — I'd have speedied it straight away otherwise. Delete with TNT. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not article material. I could see an essay of this nature being created but not under this title.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (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.

February 4 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Skies Network

Virtual Skies Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game players group Deunanknute (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not seeing any good references. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability just appears to be a self-referenced gamer network. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2015 (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.

February 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zone of Ultima

Zone of Ultima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game clan Deunanknute (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see anything that could serve as independent coverage in reliable sources. And frankly, I don't see much in the article that would even represent a credible claim of notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NukeZone

AfDs for this article:
NukeZone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable video game Deunanknute (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no real changes since previous AfD, and frankly that was only a weak keep. The time has come to delete. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
    WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hjelte

William Hjelte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Does not qualify

WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2015 (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.

February 2 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive (video game)

Thrive (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Game still far from release, no sign of meeting

our guidelines for software notability - sole Reliable Sourcy reference does not mention Thrive. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ http://thrivegame.forum-free.ca/t1276-thrive-releases
  2. ^ http://revolutionarygamesstudio.com/
We don't take product creators' words that something is particularly special. Really, in general, when we say "notable", we really mean "noted" - that other people of significance are talking about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,
WP:N clearly states that the we need multiple independent sources with non-trivial coverage to meet that guideline. Statements from a developer are obviously not independent.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (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.

February 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete.

WP:SNOW closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

'Souls RPG

'Souls RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete as non-notable per

WP:GNG, all refs are internal Deunanknute (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 02:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Czar. — Joaquin008 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Czar. I couldn't find any third party reliable sources for this game. (There are some false-positives out there because there's a number of unrelated
    JRPGs with the word "Soul" in the title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 1 February 2015 (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.

January 30 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wars

Khan Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, current ref's appear to be promotional Deunanknute (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic lacks
    ⨹ 04:14, 16 February 2015 (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.

January 26 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete.

Soft deletion, equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dance Dance Revolution (Bemani Pocket video games)

Dance Dance Revolution (Bemani Pocket video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. I can't find any reliable sources that cover these games. It's possible that non-English print sources do exist. I'd imagine that older Japanese magazines, for example, do cover them. So no prejudice against recreating the article if sources are located in the future. Thibbs (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2015 (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.

January 25 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Girl

Bunny Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy

original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy/Move to Draftspace, as
    bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Franbunnyffxii (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.[reply]
    The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion,
    reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.

This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny
, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.
It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?

↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88.

ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88.

ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)

Furthering the question of validity of Wikia

What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?

What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin

Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However,
reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:04, 9 February 2015 (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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire

AfDs for this article:
Myriam Joire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reliable source cited in the entire article. And even a Google News search is turning up lots of coverage in blogs, and virtually none in the kind of sources it takes to get a person past our inclusion rules. First discussion was a no-consensus close, for the record — but that lack of consensus hinged on disagreement about whether the claim of notability was substantive at all, and failed to address the more significant issue (i.e. the lack of quality sourcing to support her notability). No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but the sourcing on display here is nowhere near the level it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable writer/ senior mobile editor/whatever at engadget[38] (also did a podcast there). Wonder if OP looked up "tnkgrl" which the subject is better known by: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. They appeared on TWiT [49] as well as various other podcasts here and there [50]. Google News has plenty of coverage for "myriam" and "tnkgrl" [51] (tnkgrl). Used to be a dev at dolby. -- dsprc [talk] 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that list of sources, I'm still not seeing a wealth of publications that count as appropriately
WP:BLP. Wired is about the only acceptable source in the entire bunch, actually — and even it's a blurb which is nowhere near long or detailed enough to carry a person's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
PC Magazine, The Inquirer, Barron's, Fast Company, NPR, The Daily Telegraph, EE Times (where Joire is seemingly notable enough to directly question Qualcomm Senior VP about her assertions[53]) are all just fly-by-night operations as well. -- dsprc [talk] 12:47, 9 February 2015 (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.

January 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Superman: The Video Game

Lego Superman: The Video Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source to back up the claim that even once this video game might've been in development. A Google search brought up not a single valid website or article that would suggest that at one point it might've been considered being made. Soetermans. T / C 22:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's a few Flash games and a small reference at the end of Lego Batman, but that's it, nothing even remotely resembling a reliable source. This GameSpot forum thread is possibly the origin of this article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:51, 26 January 2015 (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.

January 23 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Eve Online

List of ships in Eve Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial listing of items only relevant to ingame play.

WP:IINFO --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom - leave this to game wikis Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gbawden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (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.

January 20 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A casual puzzle game released this past Saturday, without the independent reliable sources that might distinguish it from the tens of thousands of others it so closely resembles. Fails

WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (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.

January 18 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brock (Pokémon)

Brock (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another biography of fictional character that Is 90% unreferenced. Yes, it has a critical reception section that has some refs, but it's very short, and thus failing

List of Pokemon characters, or another relevant article, but the remaining 90% of content does not belong here (it is already much better covered at a relevant wikia article. ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Yet another reason Wikipedia isn't taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectivemerge to
    csdnew 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:04, 26 January 2015 (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 delete. Discussion said that redirect is not necessary Shii (tock) 05:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a yet to be published video game, can't find release date, it's

WP:TOOSOON. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The delete nomination is for the remake that hasn't been released yet (nor does it have a release date)...so we couldn't merge it to the remake... The original and 2 + 3 aren't up for deletion. Or did I misunderstand your post? Vrac (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread the nomination and Czars comment and though the nomination was for the original. Nevermind, ignore that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shadow of the Beast#Remake ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have coverage beyond the announcement. I'm skeptical that this would be a useful redirect, especially given that it will presumably one day become obsolete. But I guess a redirect is alright if it's necessary for consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good reason not to create the redirect since while it may eventually become obsolete (likely when it becomes notable enough for a separate article) it will, at this time, provide people searching for the remake with relevant info about it. it should be noted that there is a list of reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD And potential future obsolescence as one of them, nor do I think it should be--65.94.255.73 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ever going to search Wikipedia for "Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)". Anyone looking for information will search for "Shadow of the Beast" and be taken to the appropriate article immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is not a useful search term and that there is no reason to redirect, even if it's cheap czar 
⨹ 21:54, 24 January 2015 (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.

January 17 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Stock Exchange

Cricket Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article has no references and lacks notability. It is about a defunct temporary website that had, at best, only peripheral relevance to cricket. Should be deleted because it is not a notable subject. Jack | talk page 07:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination--Alza08 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. It would be very difficult to establish any notability for this website. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (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.

January 16 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boppin'

Boppin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no sourcing found (reviews, articles, etc.). Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2015 (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 delete. KTC (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijuland Battles

Kaijuland Battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this as a speedy on promotional grounds, but that was declined. I cannot see, however, any claim for notability here, let alone verification of such a claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually a recreation after an initial deletion on promotional grounds - I Prod'd that on the same grounds and was declined. This article is an unreferenced promotion (excluding references to company website) of a yet to be released game from a non-notable company. It is not clear but that might be the companies first product.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason and deletion/recreation history. This is in fact the second yet to be released game from the company.:

The Fall of Nemesis: Clash of the Kaijujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. Not seeing any reviews or other independent, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2015 (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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius, the Hand of Noxus

Darius, the Hand of Noxus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted or redirected to League of Legends, this is fan content that should be included in the League of Legends wiki, not Wikipedia. Non-notable video game character. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not mentioned in
    Dai Pritchard (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (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 redirect to 3D Realms#As Apogee Software. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hocus Pocus (video game)

Hocus Pocus (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with "sources available, can be purchased still", but no proof of sources was given and being available for purchase is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Needs some help from
    WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [54]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing against
WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [55][56][57][58] and an appearance in an old magazine [59]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (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.

January 15 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diane Reitz

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Diane Reitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. All sources are WP:PRIMARY or do not mention her. Her three webcomics are not notable, nor is the site. Last AFD was nine years ago and resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've fixed a few of the cites and she is mentioned in some academic texts and other works. ([60], [61]) I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I think that she'll probably squeak by notability guidelines.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete, in spite of good efforts by
Tokyogirl79. I looked at the main sources currently used in the article; while it appears Ms. Reitz is mentioned in several high quality independent sources, it is only in passing. I do not see high quality sources that treat her as the central focus, so (unless we have missed some significant works) she does not meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not overwhelmingly happy with the sourcing on the page, but there's enough there to pass notability guidelines. I think that if we lump together the article for Boppin' and Happy Puppy together with JDR's article, there is enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole. I'd actually prefer for this all to be in an article under the group's name of Accursed Toys since Happy Puppy and Boppin' were technically released by the group, but the information about JDR wouldn't fit neatly in that article and part of the sources about her are needed to really help push notability. It's not the strongest keep and I do think that this should probably be revisited in the future if notability guidelines grow more strict (which is one of the few givens on Wikipedia), but for now she seems to pass notability guidelines. It's not the strongest keep but I think that if we get rid of the individual pages and make this the main article for everything, it'd pass notability guidelines.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:55, 31 January 2015 (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 keep. keep ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unreal characters

List of Unreal characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. The Unreal series is notable, but that doesn't mean its characters are. Λeternus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this particular instance, I highly doubt the company is adverse to the free advertizing. Pax 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe Unsplit: By no means is detail in an encyclopedia copyright infringement for a video game unless the words themselves were taken straight from text in/about the game. However, there's only one source, and that's a wiki about the game, and I haven't been able to find anything worth mentioning about the characters past that. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) After looking over Hakken's sources, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. While the article could use some cleanup, there's plenty of sources that I didn't find, and that was the basis for my deletion !vote. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm inclined to say this is not notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Hakken (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1-6 look fine, the GameSpot review is iffy (seems to be user-created), 8 and 9 are good, TV Tropes isn't the most reliable source around. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 12:13, 30 January 2015 (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 delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeslaughter

Timeslaughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced; attempting to search for references using Google seems to yield no notable results. I found a bunch of IGN/G4TV-type "hub" pages with no articles about the game on those respective websites, and mentions of the game on a few tiny blogs and forums. The only actual mention of the game in any semi-noteworthy source was this AskMen article. Basically, the game appears to be non-notable, and attempts to find reliable sources mentioning the game have failed. V2Blast (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the way of coverage in reliable sources that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one is complex because this is only one of a half dozen or so games that link to Bloodlust. None have much content, most have no references. The original Bloodlust site is gone (as of early 2014) but I just added a link to the wayback machine entry. There is a page for Bloodlust on the gaming wiki, so the entire history is not lost. It would be good to copy what is here to that wiki before deletion (which I think is the right choice, thus delete). LaMona (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A user can request Wikipedia:Userfication and have the content moved to his or her personal pages after the afd concludes. This may be an option if you are interested in moving the content to a different wiki.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The askmen ref mentioned above is brief coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any further significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (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.

January 14 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was merge to Richman (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richman 4

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a speedy with the assertion "content is wrong and imnecessary". The game does technically exist (although the year appeared to be wrong, which I've removed) and since it doesn't technically fall under any real speedy criteria I'm listing it for AfD. It exists, but does not appear to be notable.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Richman 4 , also named as "da fu weng 4" , is a famous and classic windows game in great China area. The game is only published by Chinese language, so it is not well known by non-Chinese people. Please reference this link. [[72]] I think the article name can be changed to da fu weng 4 if it is approved by most people. Thanks. Daiquping (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh god the nostalgia, I used to play the sh*t out of 5 and 6. However in the AfD department it would be hard to save this pretty old (1998) game, which would need to dig up older printed Chinese (mostly from Taiwan) materials. Via Google Books I can find [73] noting "Richman 4 was a glorious apex and a turning point for the series" and [74] having a Richman article (although looks to be more focused on the whole series). The online sources I can think of reaches to at most like 5 [75], and the really solid ones don't start until 7 [76]. Peculiarly though, note that this is the only article on anything Richman in enwp, nothing on the whole series or any of the other seven games until 8 (and online and mobile ports). It might be also possible to save this in the form of a merged Richman (series), with the news that a Richman 9 might be coming out [77]. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS No point referencing
    WP:NOTGUIDE like crazy (in fact also 3 through 8). But I did find a source [78] via their Richman article, that has content for until 6 and lists two awards for 4 specifically. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps you'd be best to make a series wide article and merge it in, if it is on the edge between definitely notable and maybe not? JTdaleTalk~ 01:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No notable issue. Keep as a stub. Daiquping (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Richman (series) article that yarouin just made makes this article unnecessary. If the series article grows enough to make length a concern, then maybe we should consider a split, but until then, I see no reason to insist that a one two sentence article get its own separate page. Forbes72 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2015 (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 delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Morris (voice actress)

Heather Morris (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable per

WP:NACTOR. Had 3 acting credits between 2002-2003 LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per nom. Also, a biography shouldn't only be sourced to IMDb. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Fails notability.Wobzrem (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:47, 22 January 2015 (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.

January 13 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Salem

Town of Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this article and deleted copyright violations and marked an unreferenced statement. After evaluating it further I am concerned about the topic's notability, and I do not believe this page satisfies

notability. I'm not entirely opposed to merging this content into Mafia (party game), as an alternative, although I'm not sure that even this is appropriate, because there are quite a decent number of games based on Mafia and covering them all would tend to detract from that article. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EthicallyYours! 08:59, 24 January 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society (video game)

Society (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems that this article does not meet the notability requirements. This game was said to be in development in 2011, but apparently has not been released (yet). Fred Johansen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep. Doesn't meet notability guidelines; unable to locate any reliable sources talking about this topic. Obviously didn't look hard enough initially. Was able to locate reliable sources talking about it.
    talk!) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC); edited 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unsure of the stances above are due to confusion on notability criteria, or a failure of
    WP:VG/S
    :
  1. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/society-e3-2005-impressions/1100-6126078/
  2. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/stardock-announces-society/1100-6125372/
  3. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/society/614757p1.html
  4. http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-society-first-look
Being in development hell or being cancelled is not a valid criteria for deletion, so I really don't follow any deletion stances... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 13 January 2015 (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.

January 9 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was keep. Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liana K

Liana K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a vanity article about a non-noteworthy person whose only claim to fame or notability is her husband's accomplishments. Most pf the previously listed BLP sources are her own Twitter and blog-based posts. Much of the BLP is unsourced, and most of the references are too close to the subject or have been self-published by the subject for their own blatant self-promotion. MBPLY (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep & please close because of this. (Note: Liana Kerzner has some pretty obsessive haters, including a certain ex-friend who even owns/owned a blog that seemed to be dedicated solely to hating her.) The article might use of some additional sources, though (which is not unlike just about every article), on things like the radio show. --302ET (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and speaking of that hate-blog, and the nominator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liana_K&diff=prev&oldid=641796211 (please delete that edit, for the obvious reasons). --302ET (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in question was created in 2006, and having been constantly improved since then, is a decent, but not spectacular article. Liana is a well know Canadian TV celebrity, having been co-host, as "Red" of
    Gamergate controversy and problems with at least one persistent stalker has caused her entry here to be vandalized a number of times. (see article rev. history). farrellj (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (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 delete. —Cryptic 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Online 3

Metal Gear Online 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

due time. Soetermans. T / C 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sources that are notable. We don't even have a Metal Gear Online 2 article. If the apparently commonly abbreviated MGO3 doesn't appear under that name in any of the sources, then we can conclude that this article isn't the right place to put it. ~Mable (chat) 11:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication that the content in the article will indeed be called this. I'd argue for redirect, but I don't really think its a viable search term. Any content/sources could be used to flesh out its information at Phanton Pain though. But as long as it
    too soon at this time.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note - the first Metal Gear Online was the online part of Subsistence, the Snake Eater expanded edition for the PlayStation 2. For MGS4 it was also called Metal Gear Online and released separately (which has its own article), the servers of which have shutdown in June 2012. Rrp13121989 (talk · contribs) linked the first Online to Snake Eater and changed the actual Metal Gear Online to 2 in the Metal Gear template, which I've reverted. While Kojima has stated Metal Gear Online is in development, it isn't clear whether this will be part of The Phantom Pain or released separately, but one thing is for sure: it won't be called Metal Gear Online 3. --Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing in this article is abysmal; there isn't even a source for the supposed name. This should be deleted. --TS 13:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourced to primary source tweets—nothing to merge. No indication that "MGO3" is an official or even unofficial name, so it's not a useful redirect. The emphasis the nom puts on whether the game is actually called MGO3 doesn't matter so much as whether the topic would be notable by another name (article can always be renamed). Our main question is whether the topic is notable. Even so, it won't, and there are no important sources or text to merge. Article topic doesn't pass the
    ⨹ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 8 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Rugby

Blackout Rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:27, 16 January 2015 (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.

January 5 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Assassin's Creed characters#Arno Dorian. Speedy close/legit supervote because I think redirection to the character list to be uncontroversial and a full AfD to be unecessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Dorian

Arno Dorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a seperate page needed for this? Can it not be included in the main Assasin's Creed wiki? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Assassin's Creed. Submitter might also wish to AfD

Francois De la Serre (mentioned in the Arno Dorian article).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@Раціональне анархіст: I will do so if this one is deleted. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (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.

January 3 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire page violates

WP:NOTABLE. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion/2015&oldid=706459415"