[[:|WP:VG/D
WP:CVG/D]]

Video game articles, templates & categories currently listed for deletion. Articles for deletion can be found at Today's Deletion Log.

For the complete list, see our Deletion Archive.

Listing deletions

To list deletion debates on this page, transclude the deletion discussion here by inserting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/article name}} at the appropriate day. Add {{subst:VG deletion}} to the debate when listing it here. New entries should be placed at the top of the list, and are sorted by day.

For closed debates, please use {{afdl|article||open date YYYY-MM-DD|close date YYYY-MM-DD|result}} to list debates on this page. If the article has been nominated for deletion before, please use {{afdl|article|article's AfD name|open date YYYY-MM-DD|close date YYYY-MM-DD|result}} instead. Templates nominated for deletion follow the same pattern, but with tfdl instead of afdl.

{{subst:VG deletion}} can be automatically added by using RandyWang's script, here.

February 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 Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online reality games

Unreferenced. Failed to establish notability. Just a growing stream of advertisements for game websites. Spam. Recommend this is deleted. Maybe add a brief mention in Reality television or Online games. Anitpatel (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge some worthwhile content to Online game. Black Kite 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Needs rewriting for literacy, but appears to have real encyclopedic content. The list is a small part of the article. DGG (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has some actual info and there is no reason for it to be deleted.It should remain as is.
Delete I see no references, reliable or otherwise. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten and properly referenced by closing time. Without refs we can't assess notability. How would we even begin to check all this stuff? The whole thing could be nonsense for all I know. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all I know this could be a complete hoax or complete OR. There are NO references. Anybody who wants to keep this article should provide verifiable refs to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon some google searches, I have reason to believe that these games do exist, but I found no coverage of them in anything that could be remotely dubbed a reliable source. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forgive me if my reasoning smacks of WP:WAX, but these seem to have have the same notability level as E-Wrestling feds. Perhaps there is enough for a stubbified version of the article, but I doubt it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:19, 15 February 2008 (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. Any merge discussion should be taken to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online skill-based game

Page is basically unreferenced, with misused references that don't establish notability. Should be deleted, or merged into Online gambling, or a mention of competing for money in the Game of skill article. Also concerned that this is just an excuse to pimp lots of online gaming sites, many of which are redlinked. Anitpatel (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak Merge with Online gambling. The actual industry term in common use is "Skill gaming", so the article is mis-named. The subject is notable enough for its own article, but the article as it stands now needs cleanup. Needing cleanup isn't a valid reason for deletion though. If we deleted every article that might be used to pimp other sites, we wouldn't have any articles left, so that's not a valid deltion reason either. Rray (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have some references to support that? I think that's half the reason I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. A rename might make it easier to establish notability. But if no one can do that, we should delete or merge this article. Anitpatel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search for "skill gaming" brings back almost 80,000 results, so references probably exist. (A Google News search only brings back 16 results though, but that's still a significant number for something that's "non-notable".) I don't have specific references to add, nor do I have the time at the moment to clean up the article myself. (The wife is away and I have to take care of three children tonight.) Rray (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This also raises concerns about WP:neologism. That's one more reason this should be condensed to a quick mention in online gambling. Anitpatel (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being a neologism isn't a reason for deletion either. Rray (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Case that this article is policy-noncompliant hasn't been made. Article could use cleanup but that's not a reason to AFD it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge and Redirect into a separate section of Online game, which this is really just a fork of; the games are the same, only the chance to win money is different. Black Kite 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much to great potential content to merge. No evidence of spam so far, though that wouldnt be reason to delete in any case, just to watchlist.DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or merge. I agree this a non-notable fork from Online gambling, or possibly Game of skill, but since most of these games are driven by web based advertising, I would suggest the former is a better merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge topic seems to have the required minimum references for WP:N, but I share the nominator's concern about the article being used as a farm for redlinks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge. Limited notability. Best fit with an article on online gambling. Ludologist12 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a suitable article (Online game would be my choice). One can find coverage which discusses "online games of skill" or specific instances thereof, but I'm not convinced the subject is discussed in sufficient generality to justify a separate article yet. --Sturm 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid, referenced, verifiable, clearly separable topic. Mukadderat (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—references establish notability. Concerns about spam seem excessive. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus as of Feb 14:I still don't see how the advocates for "keeping" have established even one valid reference about "online skill-based games". There's one article from about.com that talks about competing for money online, but no explicit mention of the concept in this article. And another white paper about how to make money off of games, which I'm concerned isn't even a valid reference. The purpose of a white paper is (quote from wikipedia page) "designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products as it relates to the issue or topic examined". This is the epitome of WP:SPAM.
These two references (one that doesn't mention the concept, and one that is not reliable) are not enough.
Still, it looks like there is a decent consensus for a merge. People are split about deletion. But of the 11 contributors to this page, 7 would have stated they agree with a merge, and the remaining four don't appear to be against it. I understand this isn't a vote, but we may be able to extract a consensus here. A merge keep the information, and delete the "online skill-based game" article, which is a decent compromise. Anitpatel (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your contention, the about.com reference is about the subject of this article. As for the white paper, any number of organizations, commercial and noncommercial, issue white papers. This one is from IGDA, a nonprofit industry association which the article does not promote in any way. Spacepotato (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets plots

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. No notability outside of Neopets. Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing but a game guide/ploy summary with no out of universe notability whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game guide... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. see my comments here--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki(*) to somewhere like (by a quick search) the Neopets Wikia. Obviously, since the last nomination, an overhaul or merge does not seem forthcoming. *To be honest, I'm not even sure if "transwiki" is the right tag for these sorts of things these days; do people transwiki things anymore? Second choice: merge. (Disclaimer: A courtesy notification was posted by a bot on my talk page.)
I'd like to note that WP:NOT doesn't quite apply - it mentions "game guide" as in an instruction manual or how-to (i.e. not a encyclopedia article), but this is really an encyclopedic-form-factor article that seems to be a bit too niche. —AySz88 \^-^ 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that Neopets wiki is the right place since it's only related to the guilds and not Neopets proper. I can't seem to find a wiki dedicated entirely to Neopets itself, so transwiki is probably a moot point. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) On second thought, this wiki looks like a good place to transwiki to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the transwiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or establish on another Wiki before deleting...if I have the time, I might edit it... Michelle (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Neopets wikia per above RogueNinja_talk 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is NOT a game guide. Its a history of a gaming site, not a "how to play ". Page warrants retention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivvy1958 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopian Times

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. I can't even figure out where half this "information" about Neopets member newspaper comes from, and most seems to be pure WP:OR and probably made up. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of the biggest cruft magnets I've ever seen. As a Neopets user, I agree that there is a bit of notability to the Neopian Times within Neopets proper, but none whatsoever outside of Neopia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says it all. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TTN, hits are contained in blogs, neopets pages and dedicated fansites. Hits on reliable gaming sites are restricted to forums and/or FAQs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. recommend Transwiki to Neopets wikia as well since the wikia version isn't good and the article will be deleted anyway. note that transwiki is compatible with delete.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member, I can (unofficially) vouch for most if not all of the content here, especially since I myself am a member of the NTWF. So...not made up.

As for relevance on Wikipedia...eh, I'd agree, but I'd like to see this FIRMLY ESTABLISHED on a Neopets Wiki first before it's deleted. This is much more up-to-date than other guides, like the petpage that's linked to. In essence, it's not harming anyone or anything...concentrate on other articles? Michelle (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game-guide material without reliable sources. No objection to transwiki, but definitely should not be kept while we wait for someone to transwiki it (not sure if that's what the above user is suggesting or not) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, that's what I said.

I think this is a decent article and would not want to lose it before it's transwikied...(if that's a word). Michelle (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets Faeries

Another Neopets game guide that is full of OR and gamecruft that is only of interest to the members of Neopets who play the game. Primarily WP:OR with a few minor sources that all come from the Neopets site. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability outside of Neopia at all, full of original research and gamecruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above + nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and in-universe. "known to live until very old"??? Tim meh ! 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timmeh. Achromatic (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timmeh and that big heavy whackey guy above. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:58, 9 February 2008 (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 Doom WAD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Builder

No assertion of notability. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was "contested" on the basis that it received over 150 votes in some forum. Drat (Talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doom Builder is a popular editor in the Doom editing community. Indeed, there is talk about a rewrite in C/C++ or another more modern language. It's a good editor that deserves a Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. It's being "good" doesn't enter into it, as that is a subjective view (see WP:ILIKEIT); I personally think it's a fantastic editor. However, it needs to be shown that sources that are both reliable and wholly independent of the subject and coder have written about it non-trivially.--Drat (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I've changed my mind, and bow to consensus. I see no harm in making this page a redirect page to Doom WAD, and adding any relevant content here to that page. Samboy (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have some reservations about the article because there should first be one about Doom level editors in general before any about individual editors, which should be kept or made only for those tools that merit it for some reason (thus I'd encourage someone to start on an article of the former type, and then perhaps consider merging or deleting). But the reasons for the deletion proposition seem rather insubstantial and merely formal. As far as reliability is concerned, the article is linking to the actual object described (its web page, with direct access to the free program for anyone to check up), and as for notability, it's clear to anyone familiar with Doom (which is a genre forging game and not just some random forgettable game) editing activity that the editing tool is widely used and well known. Who is like God? (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many "formal" deletion nominations occur nowadays and will continue to occur, because uncounted thousands of fiction-related articles were shoveled into Wikipedia (in good faith) before the notability guidelines had achieved some semblance of consensus. Xeriphas1994 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love DB, it is a very reliable, stable, and feature rich editor for Doom and Doom related games/engines. It definitely deserves its own article.Steeveeo (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (Pacific Standard (-8 GMT))

Those are not good reasons for having a wikipedia article. To be worthy of an article, it must meet standards of notability. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I am a huge Doom fan but it isn't worthy of a wikipedia article. fraggle (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think it's worth pointing out that we already have the Doom wiki for Doom-related subjects, and there is already an article on DoomBuilder there. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an infinite resource that should be used for all the finer details of a specific subject (be it Doom or otherwise). There's already a Doom Builder article at the Doom Wiki, where DB is most appropriate having an article. --Mike (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party sources means no article, as is typical with most fan software like this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doom (video_game) article If it is not suitable in that article, then delete it. Why is this discussion in category 'P' places and transportation???? Alaney2k (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I meant to label it as product. Should've checked the category listing.--Drat (Talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think a better place for this info would be under the Editors section of the Doom_WAD page. Thoughts? Nuxius (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, it would be a good place for it... an Interwiki link to the Doom Wiki should also be set up so they can be directly linked to a wiki dedicated to Doom. --Mike (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind, I found that there's already a template for it... [[Doom_wiki:Entryway|Entryway]]/Entryway --Mike (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom WAD. Precedent: the names of many source ports are redirects to Doom source port. [1] Reasoning: while the overall concept of Doom extensibility is notable because it was pioneering and widespread (see bibliography), no individual utility has achieved a like measure of real-world prominence. Choosing a Doom editor is a bit like choosing spark plugs for a particular model of classic car: life and death within the community, but cruft to everyone else. This particular program will never be documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent publications anyway because it was originally released in 2003, when the Doom engine was already long obsolete. Xeriphas1994 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leet combo

Term is a neologism for Halo 3. No sources or any info to show why it is notable. Both CSD and Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the nom says it all Beeblbrox (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get approx 160 hits for this term, none of which is a reliable source. Bláthnaid 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, obviously, as a protologism with no references or indications of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2008 (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 (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure Whpq (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alto Trek

No sources (tagged for 1.5y), none on Google, "one of the first networked multiplayer games" does not assert notability. Lea (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No sources on Google? IGN, Computerworld articles - they don't count? Achromatic (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check them at all? IGN only mentions Alto-Trek peripherally and primarily talks about a port of Alto-Trek to DirectX. Computerworld only has "Alto Trek" in the subtitle, and in the dossier ("Epitaph of choice: “I developed Alto Trek [in 1972], one of the very first networked computer games. The things you do when you are young you take with you the rest of your life. So, on my tombstone: ‘Rick Rashid: He developed Alto Trek.’ ”), not in the article itself. Hardly "significant coverage" (WP:N). -- Lea (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the contrary, being one of the first multiplayer games is a big assertion of notability as a historical aspect of video games. The first 20 sites brought up from google in a search for "Alto Trek" brings up The NY Times, IGN, University of Rochester and Business Week. It may be that a merge is needed to Allegiance (computer game), but that's not a matter for AFD. Someoneanother 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch — withdrawn! (It seems that I searched for alto-trek, which did not turn up the NYTimes, Rochester, or Business Week article, when I should instead have searched for "alto trek" or simply alto trek. Isn't Google fascinating, every time.) -- Lea (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google is a sod like that, the amount of times I've switched words around or grouped them together with speech marks then suddenly been presented with sources which just weren't there before.. anyway, being human beats being something else, especially as you've withdrawn the AFD. I'll try to do something with it when I get time but you could always propose a merge or what have you. Someone another 06:45, 5 February 2008 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard Golf

Substub; fails ~~WP:FICT~~ WP:PRODUCT. Lea (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created as a stub (with a reference) in hopes that as additional information was made available, the page would be updated. Instead, the single reference has now been removed and the page hasn't been expanded. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should at least give it a chance. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't been edited since September 2007, and highly unlikely that it will be fixed. Gman124 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Metacritic shows that it has one professional review, by Official Playstation 2 Mag UK. However, multiple sources are preferable for WP:N (nothing at IGN or GameSpot other than token entries). A single source is enough for inclusion in a more generic article, though, such as List of golf video games. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple reliable sources which cover it in detail, in order to satisfy WP:N and in order to have something resembling an article. It was apparently due to come out for Wii, but it seems to just disappear, was it dropped from that console? Apart from that, it was released on PS2 and PC, but by Midas Interactive, a budget label whose marketing budget consists of a few dust bunnies and an elastic band. Almost all of these budget releases never receive enough attention to sustain articles, the mainstream press just isn't interested in them. Someone another 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge selected content to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe

Does not meet WP:FICT. Has not been tagged unreferenced, but Google does not yield sources to cite. Lea (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N applies instead of WP:FICT — sorry. Google: "Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe" does not yield sources to establish notability in the first 20 results. -- Lea (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no results for "Daisenryaku" on rottentomatoes.com (applies to the other three AfDs as well). -- Lea (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Lea (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is verifiable/referenced. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only what is verifiable/referenced. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. No concensus for what target, so this will be left to editor discretion. Therefore: Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi - Doitsu Dengeki Sakusen

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged for 1y. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to this and the other three entries raised by Lenticel (talk) on User_talk:LeaW#Daisenryaku_et_al_Afd. -- Lea (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N applies, instead of WP:FICT. Google: "Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi" does not yield sources beyond short summaries and cheats among the first 20 results. -- Lea (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged since September 2007. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I mis-interpreted WP:FICT (which is only about fictional subjects), and WP:N applies here — I apologize for the mess. Google: Advanced-Daisenryaku yields no sources beyond quick summaries of the game among the first 20 hits. So unless someone digs up some source, I think this article still qualifies for deletion. -- Lea (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE and TRANSWIKI per above.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daisenryaku. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku 2001

Does not meet WP:FICT, has been tagged for sources for 1y, quick search on Google yields no reliable non-trivial sources (critical reception, etc.). Lea (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N instead of WP:FICT applies — sorry. Google: "Advanced Daisenryaku 2001" turns up no sources beyond short summaries in the first 20 results. So I don't think notability can be established here. -- Lea (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 10:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Unencyclopedic list. WP is not a guide, or a price list. Additionally, any actual comparison between the games would likely be OR. GlassCobra 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a rework, not a delete. Such a table is useful. Annamonckton (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know, someone is going to jump all over you for employing the u-word ("useful, alone, is not a valid reason for keeping"). However, this is sourced and does provide data on products of a large and growing industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, rework it. Zerokitsune (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a pricing guide. I can't think of a possible way that this page could be reworked in an encyclopedic fashion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would support deletion. But I think it's an important topic, can all be cited, and encyclopedic. And yes, it's useful. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has potential and with time can probably become quite useful for a quick overview of MMORPGs. Perhaps I am also biased in this discussion because I created it. --Svip_pong 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a directory --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If this exists, and continues to be updated without a problem (the author having noted themselves that such a list will be hard to maintain without diligence), I see no reason why a similar list about MMORPGs shouldn't stick around. The only problem I have is that games, by their nature, differ wildly - what is fun to one person will not be fun to another one, so they can't be directly compared. Forum software, on the other hand, can be easily classified by features, installation ease and method, price, etc. Like I said, weak keep, but it's going to be difficult to keep on top of this unless several editors are checking up on it. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedias are used for research. This list provides a concise, sources comparison of MMORPGs. Fosnez (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably well sourced, the things that aren't sourced are not controversial, and to boot eh editors of this article have managed to avoid OR. Sethie (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (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 Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

This is just another update to Street Fighter II. Are we going to write articles on Street Fighter II' Champion Edition and Super Street Fighter II Turbo just because they had new sprites and some gameplay changes ? Also, all the notable info on this game is already covered in the Street Fighter II article. Master Bigode (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this game definitely fits the notability guidelines, and is enough of a change over the previous incarnations that it ought to have it's own article. Trying to force everything in to Street Fighter II (as some editors have tried to do lately) just doesn't work. You'll note there was a proposed merge up for over a month that resulted in no consensus (and yet a few editors opted to try and merge it anyways). This deletion seems like an attempt to force the merge on the editors who disagreed with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadoukeep (sorry, couldn't resist) Very notable update to Street Fighter II, previews of the game and interviews with the producer of the game ([2]) verify that there are enough significant changes in both presentation and gameplay that this would warrant a separate article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, particularly Locke Cole. JuJube (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and too many variants on SF2 to lump them altogether in a usable entry. Blunted (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — Blunted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoryukeep (blame NeoChaos), notability is not an issue and there is legitimate opposition to a merge. The differences go far beyond nip-and-tuck in gameplay, sound and visuals. The game is a retooled version of one of the most iconic video games of all time, distributed online for online play. In terms of access, distribution, competitive play and historical significance this is more important than the other versions put together. It's 2008, the gaming press are getting twitchy about this one and SF mania is about to go nuclear, sources will be popping up discussing this in far more detail than a subsection in an existing article can cater to. Let it become a stable, growing article on its own, deal with the other versions in a separate 'Street Fighter II variants' article if necessary and let the main SF2 article be an unmbrella covering the guts of the games. Someoneanother 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This interview is the kind of source which will be creeping out, note that it's just a couple of days old, there is no way you can cover these details as an afterthought in an already crowded article. Forget gameplay tweaks and graphical updates, the information available will be reception, development and the impact of introducing a player-versus-player juggernaut onto a worldwide network of players. The information in SF2 is a couple of bullet points, that doesn't represent the subject at all. The previous games were released before the internet revolution, with sources having to be dug out of magazines, that isn't the case here. Someoneanother 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Street Fighter II has no development section and no reception section - it's 32kb long already and nowhere near complete. More sources: Kotaku has a wodge of them, Shacknews preview Destructoid Interview, Games Radar preview (details on how controls have been changed), and in-depth developer blog discussing changes (part 1). So you're going to cover all this, all the reviews, development etc. within Street Fighter II, in addition to a development and reception section covering the other games? The ultimate state of all the SF2 games within WP is going to be tricky to implement properly, but one thing that is obvious is that SF2 as a merge destination is not appropriate at this point in time, regardless of how the information is divided in the future. Let this one build up and see how the land lies when the other games are sorted out. Someone another 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the info and redirect (no gimmicky puns for me) to Street Fighter II. The game isn't really that unique enough to warrant a stand-alone article. All the information about the changes made in the game could be added to the Street Fighter II, which they are. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Street Fighter II has turned into a mess: this is now one article that talks about seven different games. Each of these games easily meets notability criteria, so why are we insisting on shoveling them all into one article when they could exist on their own (even if only stubs until more information is available about each game)? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read my suggestions for improving the Street Fighter II article at Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect We aren't insisting on shovelling all the games into one article but there is no point in even having the article, all the information covered in the original article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is covered into the merged article Street Fighter II. Also if you decided to split Street Fighter II article into seven separate ones you will end up restating duplicate information over and over again. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SF2 article's listing for this game looks like this:

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is an upcoming title on the PlayStation Store and Xbox Live Arcade download services. The game is based on Super Turbo, but with sprites and backgrounds replaced by high-resolution artwork drawn by UDON Comics, and remixed music is also in development.[5] HD Remix is currently planned to include two game modes: an arcade accurate version of Super Street Fighter II Turbo and an upgraded version of the same game with over 100 changes from the original Super Turbo. Other features will include[6]:

Online and offline multiplayer
A training mode
Voice chat
A 'Quarter Match' mode which allows players to spectate and jump into online matches
Worldwide rankings and leaderboards arranged by character and country
Indepth statistics tracking
A display mode that fits the game into a 16:9 aspect ratio without impacting gameplay
HD 1080p display for HDTV's

Now compare that to a single 3 page interview about this particular game. Representative? In this interview a member of Capcom's online doohicky says "We’ve been reading our forums a lot, of course, and one of the overwhelming request is, “We want an HD Street Fighter.” There are obviously some costs associated with the art in creating such a thing—it’s not a cheap project—but it’s a project that’s worth pursuing to bring Street Fighter at least a bit more current than it has been. I think Hyper Fighting,” when you look at it, as good as a game as it is, when you play it on an HDTV, it does look like an arcade game from the ’90s. It’s not a bad thing…but we wanted to see what an arcade game…what a 21st Century Street Fighter would look like. This is a step toward that." That's just two sources, never mind the inevitable deluge of reception information that's going to be coming. A little list of a few changes is not going to cover this subject. Someone another 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SF2 article listing is exactly the same as the article being nominated, if the article was expanded with information from the interview (and doesn't just redundantly repeat what is already been said) then yes I would keep but as it doesn't contain any information that isn't already covered in the SF2 article than I don't see why it shouldn't be redirected. Also I would like to point out that the excerpt of the interview that you have given doesn't contain any new information anyway, everything that was said in the excerpt has already been covered by the SF2 article.--Sin Harvest (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point: we don't delete notable articles because they're too small, we either tag them as stubs or we expand them. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln were on AFD because it were too short: would you really vote to redirect/merge that into something else "just because" even though the subject is clearly notable on it's own? The game isn't even out yet and we're already trying to force this into an article it doesn't even belong in.. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of an article is of much less relevance than potential when it comes to AFDs or merging. Subjects shown to be notable aren't flushed down the crapper if sources appear showing that the subject is in fact notable. By the same token, if sources demonstrate that enough information is available to stand an article on its own two feet, why merge it and restrict the amount of room available for expansion, or to be undone again when it is expanded? That big interview came out 2 days ago, but was predictable enough. Enough development info is out there already to enable the article to hit GA or A standard, once reception information is available. What's gained by merging? Except for losing the infobox? Expansion happens, referencing happens, let it happen. Someone another 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you guys think that the SF2 article is too big, why not move the ports section into a new article or delete it altogether ? Doesn't look as big now, hum ? Master Bigode (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine suggestion but a separate issue, IMO, from whether or not this game is notable enough to warrant it's own article (again noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short). As to information being duplicated in Street Fighter II, really Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix info has little reason to be included in that article at all. There ought to be a link at the end to spinoffs/updates where individual articles can better explain what's new/different, as well as how those changes were made and why (not to mention anything else). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short" actually Wikipedia:merge says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there." of course I agree it is contentious to say if the article is not expandable within a reasonable amount of time. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it's unreasonable to expect the article to be very long considering the title hasn't even been released yet. There's opportunity for expansion even now, but once released, there's even more opportunity. Merging this would likely inhibit expansion (because the parent article is already large and unwieldy, adding more won't make the situation better). You'll also note I didn't say anything about the likelihood of expansion in my original comment (I personally believe it is very likely this article will be expanded, especially as the game is released and immediately thereafter). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This information is better presented in the parent article for clarity, avoiding fragments, and reading ease. User:Krator (t c) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is not to say that the XBLA version is not notable, but that merging will help improve the quality of both this and the SF2 article. The amount of "new" stuff in the HD version is sufficient to include as one or two paragraphs on the main SF2 page. This approach is done with very good results (eg avoid repetition of information and a more concise read for the viewer) for other XBLA games that are HD remixes (see Rez, for example). --MASEM 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The one thing that won't happen is improvement of this game's coverage, merging doesn't react to the volume of sources available and which are going to be available, it ignores them completely and relegates it to being a footnote. Most releases via virtual console or XBLA will indeed require nothing more than a few additional lines, in Rez there's a quote that it is "100% the same game". Rez was released on CD formats and is a relatively recent title, this is a re-jigged game which was seen originally on cartridge formats, before the idea of competitive play via the internet was around. Repetition of information is not what an expanded article on this game would focus on, it's what's changed which is garnering interest and the subject of all these sources. It's more comparable to The Orange Box and the individual articles for games featured on it. Street Fighter II should be a series article, the developer of this one referred to it as the sixth SF2 game, that's what's wrong with the current arrangement. A main article covering all the basics along with a few sub-articles to slot the different games into would allow all the articles to actually improve. In short, WP's coverage of this should not be skewered for the sake of following through a broken article arrangement, if readers don't want the extra details they can look elsewhere. Someoneanother 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but the Street Fighter 2 series is not comparable to The Orange Box which contains five different games, three of the two games concern the Half-Life series with the other two games completely unrelated, as such a simple list and/or short summary cannot describe the differences between the games. Street Fighter 2 series of games however are similar to each other with (descriptively) minor changes between each incarnations which can and has been displayed in short list and descriptions. I once again repeat that the information provided in the article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is already in the article Street Fighter 2 almost word for word yet the article has not blown into an unmanageable mess.--Sin Harvest (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Street Fighter 2 is a mess, end of story. It's a mess because so much loosely related content is forced into one article. There's simply no need to merge all those articles together, let alone this one (which is as different from any of the titles preceding it as you're going to get). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a mess based on what? The article has an overview section detailing the original game, next is a character table and after that each subsequent version is listed with its differences as its body. Also the article is not overly long the Street Fighter II is roughly only 4600 words in comparison the Mathematics article is 4394 words long, the Final Fantasy article is 4747 words long and Rome: Total War is roughly 6600 words long. As well as this it has been discussed in a previous merger proposal (it is recent) that the Street Fighter II article is about to undergo a rewrite.--Sin Harvest (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the central issue here is whether or not this is a new game or a port. Ports should be merged in a single page while a new game should have it's own page. Consider whether the relations between the original and the HD remix are closer to that of Puzzle Fighter and it's update, or closer to LOZ: Four Swords for GBA and it's Gamecube version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonglove (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Dragonglove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would say neither it is a remake with new content similar to Counter-Strike Source and Counter-Strike. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The potential of the article reaching a larger size due to expanded information on the development process has me feeling this should be a separate article. - Liontamer (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2008 (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. Spebi 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer Factions

expired prod, I removed prod as it seemed worthy of greater debate. Salix alba (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article essentially is an unnecessary fork of already existing articles. It does not mention or contribute anything the root articles do not already cover with a greater detail, editorial quality, real-world context and sourced analysis. 84.192.115.88 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:20, 3 February 2008 (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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmaster (Star Fox)

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. For two relevant Afds on two other gameplay elements of the series, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arwing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Fox. TTN (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is sourced and important into Fox McCloud. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. This stuff is clearly discouraged by WP policies at WP:NOT and there is abundant precedent per, inter alia, the AfD's adduced in the nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. If the creator(s) of the Star Fox and F-Zero characters will hardly give the media more information on their development so the main characters will not have their individual articles questioned on notability, how can the vehicles possibly stand on their own? « ₣M₣ » 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the details are not currently covered in other articles, which is why I switched this back from a redirect. When it was switched to a redirect last time none of the information was moved to the redirect destination, and it was before the vehicle appeared in its most recent game.
As for merging, to which article? This fictional vehicle has appeared or been mentioned in four games from two seperate series. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there is no assertion of notability, there is no need to present this articles details anywhere, and with no new assertion of notability, this should not have been brought back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the recent/pending release (2008-01-31 in Japan, 2008-03-09 in the U.S.) of Super Smash Bros. Brawl this vehicle has gained notability. (It is the "Final Smash" of the game.) Also the vehicles new use in this game was covered in the article Dojo update: Fox Final Smash and some hot dodging action. This new notability has also resulted in a number of apparently well intentioned but poorly executed edits to the otherwise unrelated Landmaster article.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not nearly enough for a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Strategy-based material aside, the rest of the article is notable and all it needs is just the basic information and game-based appearances without the too detailed strategy based stuff unless if it is sourced without the information from that source being too detailed that is all that is really needed to preserve this article and to all the people who chose delete you should consider your options, I won't be too rude about it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update to consider this Ign article link http://wii.ign.com/articles/849/849120p2.html possesses all the details of the hidden characters of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, including Falco and Wolf's usage of the Landmaster with pictures -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect why do you need to delete it? Just redirect the thing like you had before also if you check MJBurrage who undid your redirect is willing to have it merge/redirected anyway. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When/if it is redirected, somebody needs to do a proper merge first. Simply changing the page to a redirect effectively deletes all of the contents (bad and good). Just copying the contents to the page chosen as the target would not preserve the edit history. And again, I ask which page would be the proper one to redirect to, since this is now used in two different series of games. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two series? Both the Starfox games mentioned in this article are on the Starfox series article, do you mean the Smash Bros. trophy? Someone another 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the final smashes.. It's trivial information which could be mentioned somewhere in the Smash Bros. article and/or the Starfox series article, but 'it appears in..X' is not enough information for an article. Someone another 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article is already Real World. Briefly describing what the thing looks like, or where it appears is not a "Game Guide". The existing material is not about how to play the game, it is about the existence of an item that is an element of many games. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read the article. There is no meaningful real world content. There is no discussion of the development or the reception. Game appearances is not real world information. Jay32183 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is a brief description of the Landmaster, and its multiple appearances, not real world information? (The tank does really appear in multiple games, and its design does really change)
      WP:GAMEGUIDE describes a game guide as an instruction manual to playing a game. I do not see any information in the article that looks like play instructions. I could see an argument for removing things like the dimensions, but I thought that should wait for this discussion. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I, and others, say real world information we are talking about WP:FICT not WP:GAMEGUIDE. It's not that information needs to be removed, it's that information needs to be added and there aren't sources for it. The development of the vehicle by the game writes and produces as well as reception by proper critics, no fan sites, needs to be there. It looks like sources aren't there for that. If you want to prove me wrong, dig up sources. Jay32183 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Fox (series) Minor vehicle in comparison to the Arwing (already redirected), no sign that the information needed to sustain a seperate article exists, the type of info needed is outlined by Jay. It's a tank.. in the Starfox series... It's a tank in the Starfox series. That hardly needs a seperate article when a series article exists. If anything is needed for merge it can be done whenever. Someone another 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable in the real-world. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-referenced and well-organized article that asserts notability and is of interest to editors and readers in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article is poorly referenced. The organization of information has no impact on an AFD, since that's a problem that can be solved purely by effort. You also seem to not understand the term "real world context". It means the article is written from the perspective of the real world, not that people in the real world will read it. Jay32183 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Yep, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the phrase 'well referenced' doesn't refer to use of {{cite web}} templates, but instead refers to significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is relevant to people who are interested in these game scenarios. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the basis for inclusion on Wikipedia. That claim could be made for any information, true or not. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2008 (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. jj137 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teensies

No assertion of notability, and as such is just an in-universe gameplay repetition of information from the Rayman game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish notability and no real-world information. Given the level of detail of the article, the subject matter doesn't require an entire article for itself anyway. Una Laguna^Talk 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:04, 8 February 2008 (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 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 as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gaming HQ

my prod was removed by author so listing here. Lacks sources to establish notability. Seriousspender (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept up because it does establish notability, both with one of GGHQ's sites, RuneHQ, being listed in the RuneScape article, and again, for being listed as the largest site on Alexa. Is Alexa not a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikuiaku (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Tikuiaku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It doesn't, currently, see the primary criteria of WP:CORP. Being listed as an external link on Wikipedia and being the most heavily visited RS fansite according to Alexa are not criteria. Has the company been featured in reliable sources unrelated to it? Someone another 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is listed as one of the "major fansites" on Runescape (I thought fansites were against WP:EL???) and doesn't seem to have enough notability for it's own article. Alexa rank is similar to other fansites, but better or worse depending on what you measure, so not notable in that regard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (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. Merge considered but no appropriate sourced content to merge exists. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constable Neyla

This page cites no sources or real world notability. Should be merged or should not exist at all. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree. I intended to merge it into a Sly 2 Characters page (or maybe just a general Sly Characters page), but haven't gotten around to it. I'll get around to it soon. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This way people have time to look for sources. Also tagged as unreferenced, which isn't in itself a criteria for deletion. Wizardman 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the author or someone else a chance to add some references. If we deleted every article on Wikipedia that had a references needed tag, Wikipedia would be much the poorer for it. Sf46 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for merge and redirect Doubtful that this character warrants an article, but since Blue Canary's expressed an interest in looking at the article at some point there seems little reason to burninate it. Someone another 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero out-of-universe perspective means there isn't really any material to merge. Marasmusine (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Marasmusine, and no cleanup work done since original listing two weeks ago. Argyriou (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (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.

Closed

Katran (Myst) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katran (Myst) (28 January 2008 – 4 February 2008) Keep
SCAR Resource Library at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR Resource Library (2nd nomination) (27 January 2008 – 2 February 2008) Delete
The Allerian Empire at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Allerian Empire (25 January 2008 – 2 February 2008) Delete
World in Conflict honours system at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World in Conflict honours system (27 January 2008 – 2 February 2008) Transwiki and delete
Vyrium at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyrium (27 January 2008 – 2 February 2008) Delete
Megacorp Weapons Company at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megacorp Weapons Company (27 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains (26 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Nukm Radio at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nukm Radio (24 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
CyberEvolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberEvolution (24 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Rajan (Sly Cooper) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan (Sly Cooper) (24 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Keep
Gleeman Vox at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleeman Vox (24 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Merge & redirect to Ratchet: Deadlocked
Flicky (bird) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flicky (bird) (24 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Keep
The BattleGrounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The BattleGrounds (23 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Blue Shift 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Shift 2 (23 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod) (23 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Keep and cleanup
Altair(Assasin's Creed) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altair(Assasin's Creed) (20 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Delete
Dremora at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremora (17 January 2008 – 1 February 2008) Redirect to The Elder Scrolls

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Resolved

Transwiki and Merge

The result of deletion debates can also be transwiki, merge, or other more complicated tasks that need to be done after the result of the debate. The below space is for coordination and cooperation in performing those tasks for deleted video games articles.

Open tasks

World in Conflict honours system needs to be transwikied so it can be deleted.

Done

Capcom CPS Changer's was merged and redirected to CPS (arcade hardware) by Master Bigode.