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

Dracthyr

AfDs for this article:

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

The result of the previous AfD was that it should be merged. Now, I am not opposed to unilaterally going against the result in the scenario that more sources were discovered, but I don't find that the current article is compellingly different from the previous version. The Reception section was by far the largest concern, with the most common issues taken with people who opposed its existence being a lack of sustained coverage and concerns that much of the coverage is routine. The one new source added for the Reception section was a source that actually provided very little reception (it also appears to be misquoted, unless I just misread—the Wikipedia article states the author had an opinion, but from what I saw, the author was stating the opinion of players). I believe that it is still a WP:NOPAGE situation, where its notability is inherently tied to the game of origin. I also conducted a WP:BEFORE search, and did not find anything additional that would have alleviated my concerns. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm having a hard time seeing what's changed since last year's strong merge consensus. All of the commentary seems to be within the context of the game itself, and as such, I believe Wikipedia's coverage should mirror that. And this feels like another one of those article splits that is employees extremely drawn out wording to create the illusion of needing a separate article. There's not all that much there, it could concisely be merged. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World of Warcraft: Dragonflight per the prior AfD. For context, I did message the user who brought this back about this a few days back (Which I also completely forgot to reply to, I am so sorry about that). The user's reply should hopefully clarify, as they felt changes made to the Dracthyr in a later expansion (World of Warcraft: The War Within)w would help give it a degree of separation from Dragonflight.

While I get the idea, personally I do not feel as though it provides enough separation, as this is only discussed in terms of gameplay, and not in terms of reception. No sources in reception discuss the changes made in War Within, and there are no sources showing how this has impacted the Dracthyr's reception at all. Inherently they are still being discussed by critics only as a gameplay element of Dragonflight, the reason they were merged in the last AfD. In my view, not enough has changed for this recreation to meet separate notability at present. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akaoni Studio

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

Fails WP:NCORP and created by an WP:SPA. Was dePRODed with suggestion to merge, but they developed multiple games so I can't see an obvious merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Spain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valcon Games

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

Contested PROD by User:Kvng without any actual sources given. Fails WP:NCORP with no demonstrated significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandlot Games

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

Contested PROD by User:Kvng without any actual sources given. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with no coverage that isn't trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Games

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

Disputed PROD, however I am still skeptical that the demonstrated sources show notability. They are all trivial announcements or primary sourced interviews, or tangential articles about games they made (WP:NOTINHERITED). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Retro Gamer article is fine for GNG purposes - it includes interviews, but there's plenty of other in-depth material in there. However, the only other source I can find that's about the company rather than one of its games is this 1995 article reprinted from Utah Computing, which is quite promotional and local coverage at best. So I think this would need another decent source or two to pass GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i am pretty sure there is plenty of material out there talking about Beyond Games during the production of their games. Also of note is that Beyond Games founder went on to establish Smart Bomb Interactive (now WildWorks). I found various interviews with members of Beyond Games that i dug out for one of my personal Wiki projects. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCESEXIST. Also, interviews are primary sources generally, so they wouldn't count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something worth noting is that the Retro Gamer article pretty much confirms another idea i have: merging both Beyond Games and WildWorks (previously Smart Bomb Interactive) into one page, since the company went to a restructuring effort into SBI in 2003. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove WildWorks is notable, sure. Right now it doesn't seem that way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KreekCraft

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:Notability (people). A DuckDuckGo search turned up plenty of YouTube and social media hits about the subject, but nothing from a reliable source. Donald Albury 16:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Donald Albury 16:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because your using DuckDuckGo, many of the top search results are sponsored websites such as Fandom Etc. He has ties with The 2019 Coppa Agreement which is readable online, has a Forbes Biography. And is mentioned in Countless Other Wikipedia Articles. Keegan6969 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom showed up in the search, but is considered generally unreliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Please cite the Forbes biography, but understand that while articles written by Forbes staff are generally regarded as reliable, content written by Forbes "contributors" is not (see the above Perennial sources). And having ties to COPPA does not establish notability. Donald Albury 17:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are reliable, and there wasn't any reliable info about him. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Rather obvious WP:NBIO failure, not much more to say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBIO. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it's worth noting that there are reliable sources covering him. I don't think there's enough as of yet, but there is the possibility for an article in the future, since one of the sources describes him as "the most popular Roblox livestreamer" (Variety). Other sources on him: Esports Insider, Esports Advocate, KSL (passing mention), though ultimately I don't think the coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 18:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd challenge your opinion because many other 'unreported' YouTubers have Wikipedia Articles, for example, content creators such as PrestonPlayz and unspeakable and Itsfunneh and Lazarbeam all have articles linked by names respectively. Keegan6969 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the advice at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. The fact that existing articles do not meet our notability guidelines does not justify keeping this article. We deal with such articles as they come to our attention. - Donald Albury 19:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This in Variety [1], seems to be the only RS I could find though. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just spent a few hours researching this and was unable to find SIGCOV sufficient to satisfy GNG and NOTABILITY criteria for people, also NBIO. I would support keeping if there was a claim to notability, but there is an absence of SIGCOV to satisfy notability criteria. Zach^H007 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAD Corporation

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD was contested with no sources given. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV and no WP:RS provided to show notability. Patent and trademark applications do not count towards notability. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radon Labs

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage about them is trivial and mostly about their games rather than the studio. Created by WP:SPA, likely WP:PROMO, PROD was contested with no sources given. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschlandfunk Kultur on Radon Labs. Bigpoint is a merge/redirect target. IgelRM (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godot Wild Jam

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

I have no idea what the supposed claim to notability was for which this was declined as an A7 deletion candidate, as I sure don't see it. Anyway, total lack of notability. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, Godot is a popular game engine. Maybe not as popular as Unity and Unreal, but it's still popular. But keep in mind that if something falls under WP:POPULARITY it does not mean its notable. A quick Google Search shows up 0 reliable sources regarding this game jam competition. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what User:Vacant0 said, there are 0 reliable sources. As the admin who declined the A7, A7 requires a claim to significance, which imo this game jam article has in the form of being one of the oldest Godot game jam competitions (and also being endorsed by Godot). I have also explicitly asked the author to consider atleast consider merging a bit of the page into Godot game engine since clearly this article stands no chance of being a standalone one due to a lack of sourcing. -- Sohom (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the oldest Godot game jam competitions ": not in article
- being endorsed by Godot"; not in article
So what claim to notability was there???

And why would you suggest them to merge when there is not a single reliable independent source about it???

Please don't give such bad advice to editors, and please don't make claims not supported by the article. Fram (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram This is not necessarily a unknown game jam in the Godot community (I kinda follow game jams to a certain extent as a outsider in the indie game dev community). Godot does "endorse" the game jam at [2]. Similarly, indie game dev communities (and particularly indie game jams) are not well documented by mainstream media sources and this is a problem (imo?). My solution for a merge would be to document game jams within godot on the Wikipedia article and include Godot Wild as one of the many examples of such game jams. I understand if my advice could have been misinterpreted, but I don't think my suggestion is necessarily out of the world or completely against any Wikipedia policy. Don't understand this extremely combative and adversarial attitude you are giving me here. Sohom (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing of what you claimed was in the article, was actually in the article. But somehow you can't just say that. And no, there is nothing to merge. My "extremelu combattive and adversarial attitude" (sheesh, you have lived a sheltered life if this is so extreme) is probably caused by an admin causing extra work and giving bad advice while not wanting to answer even the simplest questions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Godot game engine. Alternatively merge into a list documenting many known and notable indie game jams, as suggested by Sohom above. Not seeing GNG coverage here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source warrants merging? What source warrants the description "known and notable"? Fram (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really thought there'd be more on this. Did a more extensive search and still nothing. Reasoning for it meriting a mention was that it was endorsed by the engine itself. But Redirect would do. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the endorsement but the article title contains the Godot name, so the helpfulness seems rather limited. IgelRM (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SigCov that I could find, the one source in the article is primary. Mostly social medial or blogs that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nomination, I have no idea what claim to significance or notability is being made here. Its a massive list that's either unsourced or clearly sourced to the subject's official website, which would be a primary source that doesn't count towards notability. And just as well, even if sources are found, this article should never exist as is. This sort of information should be on their own website, not hosted on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Sohom Datta for a/the discussion on significance. Claims to notability are at present not present. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I can't say I'd agree that I see a credible claim to significance here. It is up to subjective interpretation, but I can't say I would have done the same thing personally. But that's neither here nor there now that we're at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear GNG fail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I created this article, and I have heard what all of you have said and think it makes the most sense to merge this article with Godot game engine in a section for Game Jams, especially because it is endorsed by Godot. Vainslie (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention it in an overall article about Godot engine, given that there are literally hundreds of game jams a year. It would quickly balloon out of control if every single game jam was given a mention regardless of its notability. There is nothing pointing to this jam being different than the numerous others for Godot or other engines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge and with what sources? Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I was considering merging with Godot game engine, but what Zxcvbnm said also makes sense. I see no difference between this game jam and Godot Wild Jam. The same amount of people enter in it, and the Godot Wild Jam happens more often. Vainslie (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a WP:OSE argument, in this case it's likely that the other game jam is also non-notable and should be deleted. A lot of its sourcing is from individual games from the jam, and notability is not inherited. Some of the "three best sources" noted on its talk page are just trivial coverage, so it doesn't engender much confidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see your point. From my own independent research, I can't find any other Godot-specific endorsed Game Jams. I think it would be sensical to add it to Godot game engine. Vainslie (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added more to the page that hopefully helps explain how much of a pillar it is in the indie game development community. Curious what people think about it now. Bakenshake09 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the information and sources added by Bakenshake09 resolves the notability and issue. Vainslie (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be incorrect, none of those sources added help with Wikipedia's concept of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan J-Mat Fitness

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are two sources from 2008, but no professional reviews and little else in the way of significant coverage on this game. Could possibly be merged or redirected to Xavix, the console article, but I'm not sure there's much reason to do so. MidnightMayhem 08:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Health and fitness, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Xavix For some reason my reasoning was not posted, but let's go again. What I wanted to say is that we could include the game in the table of that article. Other than that, the topic did not receive significant coverage in reliable source, therefore it does not warrant its own article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources. Still checking.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Timur9008 (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis on these:

1, 2, and 4 are very brief summaries of the game and system, without much detail.
3 is a paragraph on a middle school exercise event where the game was played. This is hardly noteworthy.
5 is a press release that seems more relevant for coverage of the Xavix system than the game itself.
6 is primarily coverage of Jackie Chan Stuntmaster. This actually seems like a good source for improving that article, so I've placed it on the talk page there for later. However, it only mentions Fitness in passing - not significant coverage of this title.
7, 8, and 9 are sources directly from Xavix. Advertising materials are not WP:SIGCOV.

Thank you for looking, I really appreciate your work. However, I'm not convinced that these sources could be used to meaningfully expand this article. MidnightMayhem 17:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found nothing else sadly. Timur9008 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The game appears to come up in a lot of studies regarding exergaming - scholarly articles like this are a bit out of my depth so I'm not confident in assessing whether these would be suitable sources, but here's two that I found: Energy Cost of Exergaming A Comparison of the Energy Cost of 6 Forms of Exergaming, and Fitness Assessment Comparison Between the Jackie Chan Action Run Videogame, 1-Mile Run/Walk, and the PACER. I also found this short coverage from Gizmodo. Waxworker (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, both sources seem pretty strong—both are cited a decent amount (the former hundreds of times), both written by oft-cited authors, and both are published. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding Gear Games

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, perhaps a merge target to Path of Exile. IgelRM (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and New Zealand. IgelRM (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Path of Exile per nom, no notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per sources demonstrated below, I have been convinced of its passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Path of Exile: This company seems to lack coverage in reliable sources as pointed out by the nominator. It'd be more benefitial to redirect this topic. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have been able to find multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS, and all ascertain its significance & notability in NZ's video gaming industry:

From National Business Review (2025) - [12]
From NZ Herald (2025) - [13] - "One of the biggest players in NZ’s video gaming sector" certainly implies notability & significance.
From Newstalk ZB (2025) [14] - "One of the biggest players in [NZ's] sector"
From NZ Herald (2024) [15] - headline calls it "NZ's Largest Video Games Firm"
Some more coverage from the Herald (2023), although this one's not solely focussed on GGG [16]

I'm sure there's more - Googling them floods the results with articles about Path of Exile, but I was still able to find the above articles about the firm (and not the game) in a few minutes, and I have no doubt more exist. I'll add these to the article now, and would encourage others to also check for further SIGCOV. Nil🥝^Talk 07:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some more SIGCOV I was able to find: 2017 2016 2020 2013 2013 2013 Nil🥝^Talk 08:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2017 link and Newstalk ones are interviews and therefore primary sources, though it's pretty clear and obvious that it got secondary SIGCOV from the New Zealand Herald. Still, all of those count towards only one instance of SIGCOV, per WP:GNG, since they're from the same publication. That leaves National Business Review, which seems like it may be a trivial announcement, though it's subscription only.

Articles about Path of Exile count towards the notability of... Path of Exile.

Overall I am not convinced from this that it passes NCORP, despite the obvious huge coverage from the New Zealand Herald. It would need more than one source that is covering them in a "profile" style way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge my RS is pretty heavy on NZH - rather stupidly, NZ's other major news website (Stuff.co.nz) removed their searchbar from their website last year. I'll see what I can find though because I don't doubt they'd also have profiles meeting your requirements, they'll just be a bit harder to find. Nil🥝^Talk 09:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's two from Radio NZ:

And some from Stuff:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/games/92213759/grinding-gear-kiwi-studio-goes-from-garage-to-global-gaming-powerhouse
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/104508078/path-of-exile-leads-to-riches-for-kiwi-games-company (this one admittedly includes an interview)

EDIT - one more from NBR that's not behind a paywall: [17] and one from Newsroom: [18]

Nil🥝^Talk 09:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Nurg for the effort and provided sources. A source review would probably be in order if I intend to continue this AFD.

On the 4 others mentioned above:

1st: is very much about the in development Path of Exile.
2nd: is a written like a local news story.
3rd: says travelling supported by Xbox NZ at the end, but significant.
4th: as you said already, mostly an interview.
5th: Primarily about the acquisition.
6th: says "in association with bnz", but significant.

Newsroom (website) and stuff.co.nz would make it three sources, so I think I will withdraw my nomination. IgelRM (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since being nominated the article has greatly expanded and now reflects "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", with significant citations increasing from three to at least a dozen. Nurg (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company appears to meet WP:NCORP and new sources have been added to improve the article. MidnightMayhem (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax Studio

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

DePRODed alleging sources exist; no specific sources demonstrated that may prove notability, however, only a vague wave. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH with a dearth of significant coverage not specifically about games they developed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The studio created a video game with a fairly prolific cast and more footage than just about any other game, plus an independent science fiction film with Patton Oswalt, Robert Picardo, and Patrick Warburton. I understand sourcing was/is an issue, but I just added one from the Springfield News-Leader about MEAD. More will come soon, I'm just coming off a long work stretch. Jg2904 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, notability is not inherited by a company from works they created. That source would not technically count towards notability of the studio. MEAD (film) (or MEAD, since I just moved it due to WP:DIFFCAPS) has an article already; that is where to put that reference, not here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J. Allen Williams - As Parallax would be considered a company and need to qualify under WP:NCORP, it must be shown there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. The references used in the draft can verify it exists, verify the films exist, and talk about the founder. A search found sources such as this that are more in-depth about Williams as a filmmaker and simply state the films were produced through the studio. He is notable, the company (which is basically a name used by him to put on the films) is not. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good solution, honestly. One makes the other a tad redundant. Jg2904 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya Studio

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

DePRODed alleging notability, but no sources were provided. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no coverage in reliable sources besides an interview by NWR. Just because it has developed 11 games, it does not mean that it's notable. See WP:FAME. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't. It's a small gaming studios, and it has a poor history, and you need to remember it, dosen't mean you can just delete it! 202.65.190.6 (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, merely a list of games as is. IgelRM (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razorworks

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

Deproded claiming sufficient sources were found to pass WP:NCORP. I dispute that claim and believe the company still fails notability criteria, with the sources found being trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rebellion Developments. I could see a case being made for this article to be kept, but I think it would serve the greater good if the information from this article was moved into Rebellion's article, since they were the last owner of the studio before it was shut down. I don't think anyone is going to find any significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP given how short of a time the company was actually independent. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Empire Interactive. They didn't develop any games for Rebellion, all of their games were published by Empire so it's the more appropriate target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the notable first buyer, Empire appears more relevant than Rebellion. Concurring merge/redirect there. IgelRM (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any thoughts behind Merge and Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toi8

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

A search for reliable sources in WP:VG's search engine only turns out a few handful of results regarding his involvement in specific games, not about the artist himself. A google news lookup is largely the same story. ExoNeos (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Left guide (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NCREATIVE #3 due to his significant role in Tokyo Mirage Sessions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think WP:NARTIST is passed, as he is not the sole character designer for those games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what its worth, the nominator is now indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this person meets WP:NCREATIVE 3 based on their light novel illustrations, being the sole illustrator for My Daughter Left the Nest and Returned an S-Rank Adventurer and Who Killed the Hero?, as well as co-illustrating Maoyu. The bad faith of the nom also certainly doesn't help their case. Link20XX (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing notability there, unfortunately. The sourcing on all of those articles is weak to nonexistent. Bad faith editors should be discussed at WP:ANI rather than used as an AfD argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure those articles aren't the best, but there is absolutely sourcing for all of them. Took only a few minutes to find good sources for each: 1st ([19], [20]), 2nd ([21], [22]), 3rd ([23], [24]). Link20XX (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, unfortunately those are all about the anime rather than the mangas. It still doesn't indicate that the illustrator is notable for drawing the mangas. While he has worked on anime, it's not those, and not on a major level. Therefore, my opinion still stands completely unchanged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to show that all of those I mentioned above are indeed notable works. WP:NCREATIVE 3 states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Thus, any notable works count towards this criteria. But, if coverage of the original works themselves is what you want, that exists too. For one thing, Who Killed the Hero? has no anime adaptation (at least for now), thus it's impossible those sources could be about a non-existent anime. My Daughter Left the Nest and Returned an S-Rank Adventurer has some coverage of the manga from a quick search [25] and I also found that Conqueror of the Dying Kingdom, which he played a similar role to the previous works has coverage too ([26], [27]). This work does not have an article, but being the subject of multiple reviews still allows a work to satisfy that criteria, which those articles are. Link20XX (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:COOKIE, just working in the anime/games industry doesn't confer notoriety in and of itself, in addition to the clear lack of in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does if it's enough to meet WP:NCREATIVE. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting NCREATIVE#3 per Link20XX's explanation. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per explanation by Link20xx. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss (visual novel)

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

Article fails WP:GNG, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelweiss (visual novel). Rainsday (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? The sources I provided seem sufficient to meet GNG? W3ryfrate (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This game lacks reliable, third-party coverage. Rainsday (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I added additional references if you want to check for yourself. Both the original game and the fandisc have a page on Kotaku.^[1]^[2] The MangaGamer localization has been covered by Anime News Network^[3] and the release of the fandisc has been covered by Siliconera.^[4]

I also cited the official website of the development company OVERDRIVE as well as the publisher itself, MangaGamer. While for Reception I cited an article by UK Anime Network^[5]. There's probably more sources if I dig for it. W3ryfrate (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with only trivial coverage. Obviously, I'm open to change it if anyone finds Japanese coverage of a significant nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see above the citations, it seems like enough coverage? W3ryfrate (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. Sources have to be both independent and secondary, as well as more than just a trivial mention. Simply having a page or a short announcement is not significant coverage, but a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources cited in the article are independent, except for the plot section and the introduction section, there, alongside other independent sources, I also cited MangaGamer and OVERDRIVE's official website. The articles cited cover the game's plot as well as technical information, and some have even a review of the game + fandisc. W3ryfrate (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple resources are cited from independent and reliable sources which cover the content of the article adequately. W3ryfrate (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: W3ryfrate (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standard for video games is 2-3 reviews from reliable publications for notability. On MobyGames I see two reviews from a NeroHelp which is a Russian site I see no previous discussion on, and Gaming Target where one person said in 2009 on WP:VGRS was unreliable. The UK Anime review is OK as its an Andy Hanley review per WP:A&M/RS, so if either of the other two publications are deemed reliable this is keepable. Jumpytoo Talk 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Edelweiss". Kotaku. 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ "Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ "MangaGamer Announces Trial Version for Edelweiss". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ Sahdev, Ishaan (2010-02-21). "MangaGamer Annnounce Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Siliconera. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
^ H., A. (2012-10-12). "Edelweiss / Edelweiss: Eiden Fantasia (PC)". UK Anime Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

Keep: Sources 6 and 12 are listed as RS and cover this computer program/visual novel. Seems to pass coverage for video games. Also some note in the anime community, source 6 in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MangaGamer. Source 6 is a press release from MangaGamer, it's a primary source. Only secondary source in the article currently that is both significant coverage and reliable is UK Anime. Not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Siliconera? Also Kotaku? Plus, the Story section of the article seems to come directly from ANN editors, might be wrong though. W3ryfrate (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are seeing on Kotaku, it's just a directory listing. There is no actual coverage of the game. Siliconera is also just copy and pasting a press release directly from the company... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're both third-party coverage of the game by reputable sources regardless, without counting the other sources mentioned in the othe thread NeroHelp and Gaming Target (this one is iffy since it's on the unreliable list but the discussion was in 2009 and may be outdated). W3ryfrate (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being listed on a website is not coverage, especially given that Kotaku has extremely indiscriminate standards for what they include. Kotaku indexes basically every fan game, mod, and ROM hack it seems. That being said, even if we disregard how indiscriminate Kotaku's index is, it doesn't mean the level of WP:SIGCOV required for the purposes of establishing notability. It's not enough to merely grab three reliable sources, the sources have to have something of note to say about the subject. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Have to unfortunately concur with Zxcvbnm here. Can't find any good coverage, and unless some emerges there's no sourcing to meet GNG. Syndicated press releases don't count. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. There is disagreement on whether coverage is sufficient so a source assessment table would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illuvium (company)

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

Fails WP:NCRYPTO and WP:NCORP. Most of the in-depth coverage is focused on Kieran and Aaron Warwick, not the company. Gheus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Cryptocurrency, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage from Australian Financial Review and decrypt.co (Which I think is similarly reliable as CNET); it may be about the founders but they are related enough to scope the article on the company. Leaning Keep. IgelRM (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View (company)

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

Disputed PROD that gave no sources. Fails WP:NCORP, and yes I did search for "Point of View Inc" in magazines and still found very little. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its mentioned a few times in relation to the (troubled) development of Sonic Xtreme, so if nothing else could be found, I'd be against deletion if it could be redirected there (or elsewhere if they've got a more important role, but I mostly know them from their work with Sega.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73, I don't find any instance of Point of View at Sonic X-treme. What am I missing? ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned a few times across Sonic X-treme#Design and Sonic X-Treme#Disputes within Sega. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure how I missed that. I don't think their small role in that project merits the redirect you are suggesting. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some indepth google searching with some time boxing to their earlier period. I can only find very minor mentions. I think this is not notable Czarking0 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or find a suitable target to BLAR it to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring Delete, unable to find anything apart from the dispute. IgelRM (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I have found that that meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circus (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The JP page isn't much better in this regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree with the nominator, the ja.wiki article is well in-depth/referenced. Svartner (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument. Please state these "sources" here that prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis this appears to be a very specialist company and the Wikipedia article is unsourced apart from the company website. It's very difficult, with such a generic name, to find independent reliable non-industry sources about the company. As such, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't difficult to find related sources, but this article is mostly a list of games anyway. Fine with delete. IgelRM (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Moon

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of significant coverage. There is coverage of one specific controversy involving the studio, but that alone does not confer inherited notability on the studio itself. Contested PROD that claims WP:SOURCESEXIST, but no examples given, nor could I find any in any language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and South Korea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist, independently from the controversy.[28][29][30] Inven is a video gaming outlet, but the latter two — News1 and Pressian — are legitimate news media commonly cited here and their coverage goes beyond simple mentions, reporting about the company's prospect. They are not in the article yet, but I can add them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORPTRIV. The 2nd and 3rd articles are very clearly "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a routine coverage. It's Suwon city goverment investing on the company, which is rare and far from standard. Reports related to the controversy also satisfy audience requirement since newspapers like Yonhap News Agency, Kyunghyang Shinmun, and The Hankyoreh are some of the biggest news agencies in the nation. All of these are best compiled in the article about the company. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a brief 1-paragraph article that says that someone invested in the company. This falls under WP:CORPTRIV as "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital", or something similar. Who did it is irrelevant. I think my point has been made though, so I won't push it further besides stating my opinion you are incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suwon's investment agreement is always a focal point of the regional newspapers due to the major perks and development in the special case city economics, which are stated in the articles, so I disagree with that. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your take on the article is a fundamental misunderstanding of NCORP guidelines. The articles are regurgitations of announcements by Suwon so not "independent content" and fails ORGIND. Now, you say an investment by Suwon is rare and therefore notable - ok, perhaps that is true but all we care about is that sourcing provided in-depth independent content about the company. If it really was rare and notable, why has no other publication written an article using "independent content"? If you can find one which doesn't simply regurgitate the same content as the announcement then that is a source that would be counted towards notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Emiya Mulzomdao's sources grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to mostly center around Kim Ji-hoon. Some sources, Gamemeca.com, inven.co.kr, notability looks rather weak. IgelRM (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources above meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If sources exist beyond my ability to find and are linked here, I'm happy to revisit this. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A full source analysis would be very helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brace Yourself Games

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage of the company consists of trivial announcements and mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is connected to Ryan Clark, question is whether those Independent Games Festival nominations etc are sufficient for WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that Clark passes WP:NARTIST due to his primary role at the studio he founded, creating numerous notable games. However, I can't find any RS about him either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is also connected to its partnership with Nintendo on Nintendo's arguably best known IP. See, e.g., coverage from IGN, Inverse. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cadence of Hyrule is unquestionably notable as a game given how incredibly rare it is for Nintendo to license their IP to an indie. However, that is not "inherited" by the studio. Given that it was essentially a one-off situation, it doesn't seem that the studio in itself is notable due to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crypt of the NecroDancer. The studio's best known and most notable work, so any developer info would fit in the Development section. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge. The studio made a number of well-known games besides Crypt of the Necrodancer, so there is no obvious target that would not invoke WP:SURPRISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crypt of the NecroDancer, Cadence of Hyrule and Rift of the NecroDancer appear to be part of a series. While I share your concern that a simple merge is not feasible, I think a redirect is fine for closing this AFD. IgelRM (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They also made the games Phantom Brigade and Industries of Titan. These are totally unrelated to the Necrodancer series. I simply think their output is diverse enough that it would not make sense to send people to their first game, at least not as much as just leaving it a redlink. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully reach consensus, as opposition to the merge has been voiced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insistent on the redirect I suggested above, so closing as Delete would be better than No consensus to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's between no consensus and merge, I do support a merge, even though I don't think it's correct, it's better than a no consensus result. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain I understand your position. It seems like you would sooner see the page redlinked instead of redirected, which I think would be less valuable for readers than if it went to their by-far biggest IP. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects

[:1-1] "Edelweiss". Kotaku. 2022-04-08. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[:2-2] "Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[3] "MangaGamer Announces Trial Version for Edelweiss". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[4] Sahdev, Ishaan (2010-02-21). "MangaGamer Annnounce Edelweiss Eiden Fantasia". Siliconera. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[5] H., A. (2012-10-12). "Edelweiss / Edelweiss: Eiden Fantasia (PC)". UK Anime Network. Retrieved 2025-07-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]