Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

Galarian Corsola

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

I know that this is considered a good article, but the entire first and second paragraphs are uncited, and it is just not notable compared to other Pokemon with now deleted articles. Toketaa^talk 14:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add this, but I think it is a great example of WP:NOT. Most cited articles not from 2019 (the release year of Sword and Shield) are just mentioning limited time events that contained the Pokemon. Toketaa^talk 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toketaa I don't really care much about the outcome of this discussion, but the lead does not need citations per MOS:LEAD so long as the content is specified in the body of the article, just for future reference. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this article is well supported by its Reception section and through it passes WP:GNG, which is something previously deleted Pokémon species articles did not do. Additionally as mentioned by Pokelego above, "the entire first and second paragraphs" do not need to be cited as this would fall under MOS:LEAD, ergo it should not be used as a reason to delete this. Captain Galaxy 16:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "It is just not notable" is not a deletion rationale. Keep per the sources in the article. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to request a close, although some of the sources in the article should be checked. (sources mentioning limited time events, and also the source from 2006) Toketaa^talk 18:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that relate to limited time events are 12, 13, 14, and 15. Toketaa^talk 18:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine to mention as they are strictly covering the history of the appearances of the species. That is the point of the Appearances section. Captain Galaxy 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you wish to close the AFD nomination, you can find guidance on the process at WP:WDAFD. Captain Galaxy 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPL Co., Ltd

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

Obscure game company who released numerous notable games and went defunct long ago, whose only notable event in the 21st century is selling their intellectual property to Hamster Corporation. Little to no significant reliable sources about the company individually exist on and off the Internet, with the article sustaining on a single Twitter source for as long as one can remember. A Google search of UPL associates the name with an Indian company of the same name. Easily fails WP:NCORP. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've also had a look at the article on jpwiki and none of the sources listed there appear to satisfy WP:GNG. If anything this should be a footnote on Universal Entertainment instead of its own article. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games

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

Frankly unnecessary article with all enhancements being sufficiently discussed in the games' respective articles. This is equivalent to "List of PlayStation 4 games ported to the PlayStation 5" with no encyclopedic value of note, while being increasingly cumbersome to manage as more games get their "Nintendo Switch 2 Editions", essentially a designation of ports to the new system. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination is contains multiple fundamental incorrect statements. These are not ports. Switch 2 is backwards compatible with Switch 1, so there's no need for "ports". What the list documents are game with enhancements or new content. Still evaluating if there encyclopedic value here (I think there is) but half this nomination is factually incorrectand invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly found the list itself having insufficient encyclopedic value. I believe the explanation about the Edition games in the heading of the list article fitting better in a subsection in Nintendo Switch 2#Library alongside notable examples with notable enhancements, like the Zelda duology, instead of documenting all major and minor games whose criteria is just being a Nintendo Switch 2 Edition game. At the same time most of the enhancements' documentation on third-party games in the article are empty at the moment, and they are expected to contain not more than "Added mouse controls, runs at higher resolution and frame rate" instead of Nintendo's dedicated feature. There just isn't a lot of useful information to be documented to warrant a whole list on this topic. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I just wanted to make it clear that there multiple factual inaccuracies in your nomination - they are not just "ports", nor are they just like documenting "PS4 on PS5 games". We can have differing interpretations on notability, but like half your nomination is objectively incorrect. I did not want other participants to latch on to your blatant misinformation. You should want to WP:STRIKE the misinformation and WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - worst case scenario, this should redirect to the List of Nintendo Switch 2 games as an WP:ATD. Its a plausible search term, and since "Nintendo Switch 2 edition" is in many of the game's titles, it would be something that could be seen indirectly there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morgpie

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER.

Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor.

(renomination after first nomination was speedy-closed due to article being on the Main Page) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Video games, and Texas. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I obviously am advocating for a keep here. It was already speedy kept because it appeared on the main page in the DYK section. This means it already underwent the DYK review process which ensures that referencing is suitable and appropriate, and ensures the article is presentable. If one goes to the DYK nom discussion, they can see this was a bit more of an involved process too. There, I addressed why specific sources worked and conceded ones that didn't. Those that totally didn't have since been removed and replaced. Ultimately, I made sure during that process to have sources within the article to be in-line with how WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS allows for specific sources to be approached/implemented. I apologize if this is in any way inappropriate or out of place, but I figured a courtesy ping for that DYK nom's reviewer (@Tenpop421:) and promoter (@Launchballer:) may end up being helpful to further understand why that DYK nom was successful and found no issues with sourcing.

To be totally comprehensive/fair and address the concerns listed here:

"Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER."

No, in my view, this does not fail to meet WP:GNG. Idk why "most sources" matters here (and I know it doesn't as per WP:GNG only asking that articles have significant coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't set any real hard lines on how many of the article's sources need to be meeting that criteria, though I assume the bare minimum is two since plural "reliable sources" is written in criteria). Yes, the majority of sources I incorporated do not do full deep-dives on Morgpie. Some of them mention her in passing, and some of the sources the article uses are there just to verify context around her (i.e. the Ars Technica source). However, there are present multiple sources that do satisfy the criteria of being significant coverage and reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'd also argue other sources such as 6, and 7 help supplement/flesh out the article's sourcing. Basically, if there was a lack of sourcing present in regards to satisfying WP:GNG, it would be made up by the whole being greater than the sum of the parts here (in terms of sourcing). But like I'm saying, ample sourcing is there.

Also WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENTERTAINER is met in aggregate here. Those criteria are so briefly detailed/described, but points 1 and 2 in WP:CREATIVE are met here. Those two points that ask the individual to (1) be regarded as important/cited by peers and (2) have originated a new concept/theory/technique. That's covered by the fact that there is sourcing present (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that cites her originating metas (essentially Twitch content-equivalent of a concept/technique/genre) that influenced other creators on the platform (whether they like her content or not). Here's an additional source of one of the platform's biggest creators (Cr1TiKaL, who in this case would be considered her peer or at least contemporary on Twitch) calling her the "most influential". I would say this sort of thing also helps satisfy point 2 ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") of the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.

"Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable."

This wasn't a "one-off stunt" though. Sourcing present, especially from 2024, make it clear that she has multiple times influenced other creators on the platform (as well as the platform itself to respond to her content). Sentences from sourcing present in the article include: (1); "This isn't the first time Morgpie's creativity has led Twitch to a reactionary policy change"; (2); "several risqué streams hosted by one of the platform's most notorious boundary pushers. Morgpie, who played a pivotal in the "topless meta" that flourished on Twitch last December, found a new way to challenge Twitch's censors". The other points in the WP:BLP1E criteria ("The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" are also not applicable here; as an active streamer, she is not even trying to remain a low-profile individual; and her role in the "one-off stunt" here (again not a one-off, anyway, but if it was,) was both substantial and well documented.

Also, as a further consideration, she was a pornographic actress prior to becoming a Twitch streamer, which further suggests she isn't notable for one event, and this is also bolstered by her winning of major porn industry awards (1), 2) which also establishes her as notable outside of the Twitch content sphere.

"Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor."

I actually don't care about this. I definitely am assuming good faith here in the nomination. I also honestly wouldn't know whether pornographic-industry bios are more or less likely to be tagged for deletion. I do think the nomination (in my view) is closer to snow side of the spectrum than not, but I don't think it was maliciously intended nor do I think you're trying to be a censor.

Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability demonstrated by several incidents involving apparent nudity causing a series of reactions from others. At the same time, the article's section on this topic is sensationally written and artificially inflated through opinions and statements from official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown. While it does pass the most basic of GNG, it absolutely fails WP:BLP1E, being a lower profile individual with little notability outside of the stunt. I don't believe users need the picture of topless Morgpie or her playing Fortnite greenscreened on her buttocks to identify her behavior of streaming with a risque sense of humor to apparently varied reception as a subject of (exaggerated) discussion in the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The interviews sourced in the article at present are by reliable sources, but this is arguably routine seasonal coverage. This player did not achieve any significant results during his career; when he was in a tier-one league, his team never made top-three, peaking at fourth place (semifinals). Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only demonstrated notability is joining a tier-one league without significant results so there isn't a lot of information about him that can be documented. So many gamers named Matt around the world and this guy gets to be considered the definitive Matt gamer, if only he had a more significant career. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Matt Elento ("Matt") competed in the NA LCS, a fully professional league, and has reliable, independent coverage from ESPN, invenglobal.com, tsn.ca, Polygon, DBLTAP, thenextweb.com etc. Goodboyjj (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contend, as I did in previous discussions of other LCS players, that the coverage presented is routine and not in-depth. There are around 300 players who have competed in the LCS, most of whom have some routine coverage (e.g. rosters swaps, season interviews) by esports and esports-adjacent outlets. Not all these players deserve an article though; most of have never made it to the top-three, many not even to playoffs, and most have never won individual honours either (e.g. MVP, all-pro team, rookie of the split, etc.)

My argument is therefore:

Yue🌙 16:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage. This player did not achieve any significant results during his career; when he was in a tier-one league with Echo Fox, his team never made playoffs. Yue🌙 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person not meet general GNG--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Touch

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

The sources are two links to the brand's website and two YouTube videos. I couldn't find any other sources through a WP:BEFORE that demonstrate this product's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [1] or [2]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [3], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412. Retro Gamer reference is sufficient for inclusion. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A 412. Both Time Extension and Retro Gamer are reliable per WP:VG/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Play & Learn

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

One “source” on article: a demo of the game (doesn’t even work anymore). Cannot find other sources. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for this 25 yr old piece of software. I can find copies on the Internet Archive to download, but that's about all. It's mentioned in some old "hey remember these" computer game websites, that's about all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually no coverage, certainly nothing independent. Non notable software. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Gubanov

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a couple of russian sources covered after he was recognized as a foreign agent on 4 April, even with this news the only notable magazine that covered it was Lenta.ru, which is blacklisted. Russian wiki also deleted the page. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Alexey Gubanov, which I have declined because this article exists. Is there any content or sources in the draft that can be added to the article? (I have not reviewed either the draft or the article in detail, and do not at this time have an opinion on notability.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and merge. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm not putting any weight into whether or not the subject has a Russian language article. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this is Userfied, which editor's User space should this go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackray

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. A source like this [4] [5] just states that he just won at The Big House 9 tournament, but that's it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused about how notable are the subject's wins in the world of gaming. Until we have context, I'm not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabuz

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Bull feature is ok, but I could also see a redirect to his current team. IgelRM (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CyberStep

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on the article, I did want to point out that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person—i.e. WP:BIO—would not come into play for an article for a company, which falls under NCORP instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources on JP wiki or done a BEFORE in Japanese? IgelRM (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE not done - there are many sources on the Japanese article that should have been addressed before starting the AfD. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Twilight Sparkle, Teacher for a Day

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

Non-notable app; no secondary coverage whatsoever ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Software. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are already reviews from Kirkus, Common Sense Media, and Wired in the article. I also found mentions in Kotaku and 148Apps. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I think it toes the line of passing and not passing GNG, but there is a clear merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. MidnightMayhem 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in Wired, CSM and Kirkus Reviews are enough for GNG. The article needs better sourcing and probably could do with some expansion but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pamzeis (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Pamzeis that the Wired, Common Sense Media, and Kirkus Reviews reviews already on the article appear to meet GNG. 148Apps is noted as a situational source on WP:VG/RS, but the review linked by Vacant0 is also fairly in-depth. Waxworker (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pamzeis and Waxworker above. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Merge and Keep, not headed towards a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are enough to pass GNG (though the article could definitely be improved).

I originally supported merging to the MLP article, but I changed my mind, since the MLP article only has a very general overview of other media in the "Other Media" section. Weak support for a stand-alone article. ApexParagon (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as before. Demonstrates little notability outside of reviews, so a fairly short and general overview at the proposed target article is sufficient. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMP (streamer collective)

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

most of the notable stuff are about a member of the group, not the group itself. the only significant coverage about the group are from the tubefilter article, the rest are mainly about kai cenat. Http iosue (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Anything potentially notable sources about the group seem to be focus on Kai Cenat. Delete per GNG and lack of group notability notability (WP:NOTINHERITED)Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you go through the sources they have coverage of each of the amp members and if you search each of the amp members each one of them is notable. Momentoftrue (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects