Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games

WP:DSGAMES

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: board, card, etc. 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|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 Games: board, card, etc. 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 September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Games-related deletions

CODA System

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

Non-notable ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has two references, each of which are to a mention on a single page of a book from 2001 and 2011 respectively. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superchess

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

No evidence of notability. Both sources are reviews and the second is very advertorial. Tagged for notability for several weeks without response. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Both sources are reviews" sounds like this would be an argument for deletion. @Velella: Why should that be the case?

Two reviews in my view usually fullfil the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. More specifically, they do fullfil WP:NBOOK, which I think is the most closely related specialized guideline to the topic of tabletop games: "A book is presumed notable if ... The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." Daranios (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @Daranios. The problem is that the first source is a capsule review, i.e. presumably just a few sentences, so it has a shady relation to WP:SIGCOV, hence my weak keep. The second one is half a page long, so it's ok. Would be nice if we could find some more sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review in White Wolf has 16 full sentences, or 6 paragraphs. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's not capsule in my book then. Consider my vote amended to full keep :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. No objection to starting a merge discussion to one of the various Chess variant pages, especially if this is going to stay a stub indefinitely, but it hasn't been around long enough for us to assess that, has it? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 350+ words (after I expanded the game description), it is no longer stub-class. Guinness323 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, sometimes it WP:SNOWs in April. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added material from the extensive (360-word) review in Shadis #12 as well as coverage from a third-party website about chess variants. This should establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.

The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks, I've seen that and added what I've found there. Not a lot, but not trivial either. (And it has become a convoluted sentence again, so if someone can phrase that better...) Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment from the above, [1] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [2] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That 2024 dissertation on D&D transmedia has a large focus on Eilistraee & the impact of Lisa Smedman's Lady Penitent trilogy on D&D narrative (pg232-269). I didn't go through every collection available in the Wikipedia Library but I went through some of the larger ones (JSTOR, ProQuest, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) and that dissertation was the only hit for "Eilistraee". Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corellon Larethian might be a decent target if the decision is to merge (similar to Lolth being merged to Drow); in the Forgotten Realms fiction, Eilistraee is his daughter and she' already highlighted a bit in that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the reception we have now would be bolstered with said PhD thesis, and the plot summary would be trimmed back to an amount balanced with the non-plot sections of Publication history and Reception (and in part Background), we would have a non-stubby article which fullfils WP:NOTPLOT and has enough based on secondary source to fullfil WP:WHYN, i.e. a notable topic. That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge, though my preferred target in such a case would be the Drow article in parallel to the discussion on Lolth. The commentary on Eilistraee we have now is closely related to the drow. Maybe a bit less so in the PhD thesis. List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Corellon Larethian are also related topics and fine as merge targets, but in my view somewhat less suited. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. Much of this lacks proper sourcing, or even violates WP:NOT. This is the normal basis for deleting or redirecting, but I see that the several keep !voters would also support a merge. Supporting this per WP:ATD and per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

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

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U GamePad: per nom. Sources do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Toys. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced reception section shows notability, (sources like this are in-depth, and by third party reliable sources], and the subject would be an WP:UNDUE issue to fully cover the topic at the GanePad article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also baffled by the nominator's comment about the PlayStation Portal. It is, at best, completely irrelevant, and, at worst, completely against their own argument, as there is RS commentary about how off tv play did it better. There's articles saying that off tv play is the Wii U's legacy even. Very misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read their comment, they did not make a SOURCESEXIST violating argument in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think an attempt at talk page discussion would have been beneficial before nominating. Still, I struggle with the title "Off-TV Play", which sounds confusing/ambiguous outside the Wii U context. I don't think it's a good article as is, I'm unsure what the opposition to a merge is here. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The feature does appear to have reputable coverage and reception, and merging the information of this article into the GamePad article would either require a disproportionately long section or, if trimmed, would create a WP:UNDUE issue. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not what they said. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad per nom ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion