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

Spinout (video game)

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

This is an article about a minorly successful Playstation 2 game. This article is completely unsourced. Found coverage at the time of publishing in the form of a page on game site IGN, and a Metacritic page. There's one review on said IGN page. Because of this, this page fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, (there really isn't any) and the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. tl;dr this article shouldn't exist. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Products, Technology, and United Kingdom. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. [1] Jeuxvideo for Spinout. Slightly more coverage under RealPlay PuzzleSphere: [2] Eurogamer, [3] GameSpot, [4] Videogamer.com. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Eurogamer for Spinout as well. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venti (Genshin Impact)

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

There's not nothing here but it is very light on the real-world content, which is what fictional character articles depend on. Source 11 seems more substantial but that is really it. All the other sources are primary, listicles, or are churnalism Screen Rant kind of stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A long time ago, I planned on making an article for Venti (as I did with Furina and Paimon at the time) until I passed over the draft to Cukie Gherkin. What's there includes academic coverage regarding his design that appears to be usable even if it's not in English. But it's also been a while since I made a proper judgement of those sources (I think they were all reliable last I checked but who knows), so I don't have a vote. λ NegativeMP1 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my source check of the 7 listed links in the draft:
1. "原神：老说温迪是七神最弱，都是大家的误解，风神实力很强的" from ACG Dimensional Fan (ACG次元饭), a subsidiary game media under Game Daily (遊戲日報). Game Daily is deemed marginally reliable by zh:PJ:VG/S, useable but not suitable for establishing notability.
2. "ANALISIS VISUAL KARAKTER VENTI DALAM GAME ONLINE GENSHIN IMPACT" from Jurnal Barik. Looks like an established journal, so, one reliable.
3. "Venti: Semiotic analysis of gender performance, stereotypes of characters in electronic games and their impacts on the Brazilian audience from Companion Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Computer Games and Digital Entertainment (SBGames). Looks like a conference paper, and laughably, in the Abstract I've already noticed one false claim -- ... the Venti character from the Genshin Impacto franchise, developed by the Chinese company Tencent. Marginally reliable.
4. "I Still Can’t Listen To Genshin Impact’s Inaccurate English Voice Acting" by Sisi Jiang from Kotaku, published on September 8, 2021. Deemed reliable by WP:VG/S, and we zhwiki editors often use Sisi Jiang's articles when it's about Genshin Impact.
5. "Diversity is not a win-condition" from Critical Studies in Media Communication. Looks like an established journal, so, another reliable.
6. "I Still Can't Listen To Genshin Impact's Inaccurate English Voice Acting" by Sisi Jiang from Kotaku, published on September 7, 2021. Again, reliable.
7. "温迪生日原神玩家各出奇招，美食手工样样都来，程序员写代码示爱" from Youyuquan (游娱圈). Hmmmm, an undiscussed source. Their website looks like a junk yard, and their About Us has an one-liner intro with no editorial policy nor team composition. Unreliable in my opinion.
In conclusion, I would say it passes the notability test with at least 3 good sources (4th, 5th, and 6th in the above, which are conveniently all in English). SuperGrey (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4 and 6 are duplicate articles, so they don't both count towards notability. Venti also gets only 3 sentences of mention in the article, so it's not WP:SIGCOV. I can't read the 5th one, but even assuming that is SIGCOV, that only makes 1 "good source". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, 4th and 6th are the same. I didn’t even realize that lol. Then, even together with 2nd, we only have 2 good sources. Need to find more sources. SuperGrey (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From zhwiki article, I found another source: "《原神》温迪角色PV视频可爱少年让人捉摸不透" from 3DMGAME. Deemed reliable on zh:PJ:VG/S. SuperGrey (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, a trivial mention in the Kotaku article is not significant coverage. It states "And the voice direction also did our boy Venti super dirty. I was so accustomed to a Venti who was self-deprecating, friendly, and teasing. After hearing how he would speak to me in the English voice pack, I wanted to throw him into a lake." This is certainly good enough to include in reception as a negative critique of his English voice, but it is a tiny part of a far larger article that discusses numerous other characters and is better-suited to demonstrating the notability of the character list.

I seem to be unable to load 3DMGame so I cannot judge that one. But remember coverage has to be both significant and reliable, not one or the other. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the Kotaku article. Therefore, I did not include that in the "we only have 2 good sources" in this message. Would you like to do a source check on the journal articles?

You can get an archived copy of the 3DMGAME article in the Wayback Machine. SuperGrey (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That just seems like a routine news announcement to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Genshin Impact characters. I am not confident Venti is notable, or that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is passed by the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. For what it's worth, I think Venti may be notable, but I nor Negative have done a deep enough dive for it to really pan out yet. At present, I wouldn't be comfortable with the sources available. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Kingdoms

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with insufficient reviews of any one game in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Twist

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks reviews in reliable sources besides Android Magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's [6] Android Police, which I'd rate slightly better than the blanket-unreliable it is on WP:VG/S, but nom is right that it's really just Android Magazine UK. The other sources on the article might be fine, but are announcements and not significant coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Relic (video game)

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

Appears to only have gotten reliably sourced reviews from AppSpy and Pocket Gamer, falling short of the typical WP:GNG threshold of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some coverage but nothing sustained Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable source coverage to sustain a coherent article (as evidenced by the fact that virtually nothing of substance is said in the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable game without enough significant coverage to meet GNG. MidnightMayhem 02:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PULSAR: Lost Colony

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

Game appears to fail WP:GNG, with the only two publications that are reliable and covered it being Rock Paper Shotgun and The Games Machine, therefore causing it to fall just short of the typical threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Eurogamer mentioned them too in an article and they're on the reliable list. I know Game Rant isn't on that list, but they covered them 2 weeks ago and appear to be an decent publication. I think the article just needs to be updated, and I have no issue with doing that. Bobtinin (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the link to Eurogamer to confirm whether it is WP:SIGCOV? Game Rant does not count towards notability, per WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found a GotY list on Giant Bomb that talks about the game to a significant degree, though am not sure if taken together this is enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder scene

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

Firstly, this is not a discussion I am creating on the grounds of notability. I have no doubts that this subject is technically "notable". However, it is a clear violation of WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON, which I feel are two policies often forgotten about when creating a page (someone can make a page on something, but nobody asks if they should).

With that out of the way, I will say flat out that there is almost nothing to say about the ladder scene in MGS3 besides the fact that it exists. It can literally be summarized in a singular sentence on the lines of "At one point in the game, the player has to climb an extremely tall ladder for three minutes." Maybe give a few sentences in the reception section of the game article about how the scene was interpreted by critics or how it inspired other sections in other games, and boom. You've summarized the subject without leaving out any important information. Because no other information exists.

And to further reaffirm what I mean by that, I am the primary author of Snake Eater (song), as well as the user who got it to GA status. That song is most commonly associated with this scene. However, the song I believe warranted a spin-out because not only did it demonstrate notability, but there was information about its development and analysis of its lyrics. There is a complete article to be had there that covers all the bases that should be expected out of a spinout. Now go back to "That song is most commonly associated with this scene." As a result of that, I have basically checked every source that exists regarding this scene. For further reassurance, I also checked every source cited on this page (except the Metagaming book). Yet, there remains almost nothing to be said about the subject beyond a sentence or two and something that could easily be contained within a Reception and/or Legacy section within the article for MGS3. A proper, encyclopedic article on something like this cannot exist solely because of what critics thought of it. It needs context and reasoning as to why it should have a separate article. See WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON.

Basically, there is nothing to be said about this scene. It is "notable", but also fails WP:NOPAGE and MERGEREASON, with almost no development info or anything beyond the fact the scene exists and how journalists reacted to it. You could easily summarize this in the article for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater with little to no consequences towards its coverage. In-fact, covering the subject in an article that actually discusses it as part of the greater subject (and therefore, giving more context) would likely benefit coverage of the scene. I suggest either a merge or a redirect to Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Technically notable but better served in the parent article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:WRONGFORUM, the nominator admits this is not a deletion discussion and that the page is notable and passes WP:GNG with significant coverage. I understand AfDing a non-notable page when you have a potential merge target in mind, but AfDing a notable page makes no real sense. Furthermore, there are plenty of standalone pages on similar equally brief gameplay topics such as Cow level and The Goat Puzzle, so its brevity has no bearing on whether it needs to be merged and the rules don't state that "short things do not deserve their own article". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is part of notability, so this is still the right place. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE clearly states that it is meant to apply to stubs with almost no content. "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." The amount of information on this topic is far more than just a stub and there is absolutely enough content to justify a standalone page. It just does not seem like it is enough to head to AfD instead of a merge discussion (which is far more about opinions than policy violations). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it gives as examples large scale sections of presidential campaigns and whether other articles provide "needed context". Both apply here. With merge discussions, often no one will contribute besides the page creator or WikiProject members, so an AfD is better to get eyes on things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think AfD is more frequented does not mean it can be used for any random issue. The fact is that there is NO WP:DELREASON that this page violates, and it is not a content fork and was created whole cloth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DELREASON is that by failing WP:NOPAGE it becomes a notability problem. Because NOPAGE is part of notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire basis of the AfD (that it "violates" NOPAGE) does not make sense. NOPAGE is a matter of opinion and is extremely vague. Which is why merge discussions even exist and you can't just point to the fact that something *could* be merged to justify starting an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article seems lacking in a show of independent notability, and works best to improve the content of the main article(s). I also find the procedural keep argument uncompelling; as noted by Parakanyaa, an article having a NOPAGE conflict is perfectly valid as a DELREASON. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent notability with GNG is passed; the Metagaming book has several pages on it, there are two full articles from reliable sources otherwise, and multiple paragraphs in a list, among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I find the NOPAGE argument to be a reasonable one for this discussion: there's just not enough meat on this bone to justify it being on its own, and the reception doesn't change that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per most metrics at WP:MERGEREASON. Ridiculously unnecessary page split. Usually I suggest wikia for these sorts of things, but I'm not even sure they're lax standards would tolerate this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only metric that would seem to apply is #2 "overlap", even though it gained enough standalone notoriety that I don't believe it is "redundant" with the article's plot section. Still, it does not go against "most metrics". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely short (#1, is only 7k in size including formatting) and makes little sense to anyone who hasn't played the game (#5). I don't even agree with your claims of independent notability, as all your sources seem to largely be in the context of its respective game. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MERGEREASON says "If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences)" (emphasis mine). 7k words, while not particularly long, would not appear to be anything close to the threshold for breaking that particular rule, which appears to be written to apply to sub-stubs. It separately suggests that the article be merged only if it cannot be expanded. I'm perfectly willing to make it longer with guidance on how to properly do so, so it would not seem to apply either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, this article is already so bloated with fluff, it could be condensed into a few sentences...in the parent article. The whole article is so forced. It's as if it was written in a manner to create the illusion of warranting a split or something. There's nothing of substance here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro the Dragon (2005 video game)

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

Seems like a non-notable sequal to a game. I tried to search for this but only the Spyro the Dragon shows up. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable sources for an apparently short-lived game on the java me platform which itself was short-lived.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ratcliff

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

This WP:BLP on a video game developer has had an unresolved references tag for six months. The article is currently sourced to two reviews of games he was apparently involved in creating, which do not provide WP:SIGCOV.

A standard WP:BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books) fails to redeem, though the search is slightly frustrated by the common name and the fact there is a well-known John Ratcliffe. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Chris

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. No noteworthy biographical information. The article has few sources, several of which are taken from social media such as Reddit and Twitter, which are not reliable. MidnightMayhem 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can mostly find articles about police constables named Chris... The sourcing now in the article isn't RS, this was the closest I could find [7]. We just don't have enough sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are reliable, but they're entirely lists, and passing references. The bit of trivia about him briefly holding a record for largest payout seemed promising, that's the sort of thing that might get news media interested, but I can't find any articles about that. ApLundell (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project

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

The Oblivion ~~remake~~remaster has brought these modders back into the limelight, but I am very dubious on the notability of the overarching project. Note that Skywind and Skyblivion already exist as articles and are obviously notable, but I'm not seeing the same level of notability for the mod team. Even stuff like this largely talks about Skywind. Notability is not inherited, as with any other game development studio, fan or not. ~~There's also no obvious place to redirect, as they are literally making 2 games.~~ Actually, Skyrim modding could be a potential place to redirect the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skyrim modding: They are mentioned in that article, under the section "Total conversions". silviaASH (inquire within) 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is full of reliable, secondary source coverage specific to the group and their projects, enough to establish their notability independent from the larger modding scene. I don't think Skywind is necessarily independently notable: you restored it from a redirect 20 minutes before nominating this, it cites only one secondary source, and hasn't been widely covered since 2014. Skywind can be adequately covered in summary style in its parent article, as is currently done. There's enough coverage of Morroblivion, Skywind, and the collective to justify a standalone article. I wouldn't be opposed to merging to Skyrim modding as I think this should be covered in summary style there too, but we can already see from the sources that it has enough coverage to keep and justify a split, dedicated article. czar 11:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are there: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] So ultimately, the current state of an article means nothing as long as notability is demonstrated, and the idea that it hasn't been covered since 2014 is just untrue(?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the project itself. Also open to other targets, per WP:ATD. The team isn't notable outside of the actual project itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination is correct on its merits (this modding group does not seem independently notable of its projects), but I'm close to "IAR keep, merge Skywind and Skyblivion back in" because the current organization does not improve the encyclopedia. I have two issues, one being the structural problem of a developer being notable for two works but not independently notable having no natural redirect target or place to put summary information, the way that a developer notable for one work naturally does. As a result, there's no natural redirect target. The other is that there's little encyclopedic information actually contained in the two individual remake articles. It's a bunch of WP:PRIMARY information about the development process. We might be better off with one article, at least until the time there's enough secondary-source information about the games to justify two articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup, and we should also not be basing deletion decisions on whether the articles need cleanup. This is on the notability merits of this specific article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Zx, you're technically right by policy. I concede as much in the first sentence. My argument is that the encyclopedia is worse off for the reader, even if the articles technically hew closer to WP:GNG, after you split off Skywind and AFDed The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squid Craft Games 2

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

Fails WP:GNG, with no significant-coverage regarding this event beyond the fact that it happened. The sources in the article also seem rather questionable at best (Invenglobal, Softonic, Streamscharts, etc.) And once again, they don't seem to say anything beyond the fact that this thing happened, or who won it. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Events. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Invenglobal is reliable per WP:GAMESOURCES#Esports. While MeriStation (Source 3, 7) are reliable per WP:GAMESOURCES#Other reliable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that Meristation was reliable, didn't know about Invenglobal though. Nice catch. Either way though, the commentary seems extremely shallow and I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. λ NegativeMP1 00:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest installing User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. Pretty useful in finding out if a ref is RS or not. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is covered by WP:NEVENT, and there's no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the event. The sources are either reprints of announcements that the event will happen, or WP:PRIMARY reporting on the view counts of the event. There's no analysis or retrospective of the event. Second choice is merge to Twitch Rivals, but I don't have a good enough understanding of the moving parts with that brand to know if this was part of the yearly Twitch Rivals tournament or just marketed with that name. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Blood Hockey

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

Fails GNG via a lack of significant coverage. All the sources are routine coverage of the release of a game and are short sentences or paragraph of basic descriptions of the game. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the characterization of the Nintendo Life source as "short sentence", "paragraph", or "basic description of the game". It's 531 words, six paragraphs, and contains substantial review content. In addition to the sources in the article, other sources considered acceptable per WP:VG/RS: Nintendo World Report [15], Nintendojo [16], and Gamestar [17]. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above reviews. Also checking the game's Metacritic page, I see a Push Square review: [18] --Mika1h (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animecon (Netherlands)

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

Cannot find sources. All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Roasted (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Events, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Hamster Corporation? Otherwise Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:47, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sources provided above also fail to contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 23:09, 25 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 [19] or [20]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [21], 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]

Hi, I created the page. It was reviewed in PC Pro, Retro Gamer and Crash magazines. It's a proper boxed manufactured product. It served as continued reading from the ZX Spectrum Vega+ article. The mag reviews mention Vega+ (notorious product). Happy if you think it belongs elsewhere but I'm unsure if it's defined as an actual clone (a "copy"), as per merging it to the ZX Spectrum clones page mentioned above. Isn't clone defined as around the same hardware? I am familiar with N-Go and it's a clone of the ZX Spectrum Next machine, for instance. Revolt (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide references to those sources such that they can be evaluated? The question being evaluated is one of notability.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty near to merge, but would like to see Revolt's probable references they mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:00, 21 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 [22] [23] 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]

Keep. Passes GNG, though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd suggest MimirIsSmart to base the !keep arguments on our policies and guidelines, along with references that support your claim. Carpet statements are WP:ILIKEIT. Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winner of The Big House (tournament) among other notable tournaments. DCsansei (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And? Just because he won a single tournament? lol🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese search found a 4gamer interview IgelRM (talk) 18:45, 24 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]

Keep, passes GNG though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please base your !keep arguments on our policies and guidelines, along with the references supporting your claim that GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Redirects