Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Video games-related deletionsEdit

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College HoopsEdit

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

I’m not used to editing articles for video games, but I am pretty sure this article fails WP:GNG. The article only has 3 references, with one of which being a link to a YouTuber (Scott the Woz) who made a video on the game. Speaking of which, the article is almost fully dedicated to Scott, with the only exception being the infobox and some of the lead. I don’t really see how this game is notable enough to have an article on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. this isn’t my area of expertise. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

20th Century Fox Consumer ProductsEdit

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

Division of 20th Century Fox that is not individually notable enough for its own article. Trivialist (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Disney Parks, Experiences and Products as not independently notable but plausible search term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep I think it has notablity so why redirect instead just keep it simple and prove just the article has lot of reliable sources so yeah see before delete. CCVolk23zx (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete While there are reliable sources, TCFCP is just a mention in most or amount to routine coverage given coverage by industry news outlets (thus not meeting [WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]) not major news outlets. Spshu (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Grimoire GamesEdit

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

Article on a profitmaking corporation has had no sources for the preceding 13 years. A standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, Google Books) finds four reviews of specific products on blogs and nothing else. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not totally surprising that a company that seems to have stopped trading in 1981 wouldn't have much about them online, and it may be that there are better offline sources, but I agree with the nominator that I can't find anything to hang notability on. That said, I'd argue in this case for a redirect to Arduin as a good WP:ATD and a potentially useful redirect, without prejudice to recreating the independent article in future if any decent sources can be found. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sold on the argument that long-defunct companies don't have online sources as notable defunct companies tend to continue to generate contemporary coverage if they were notable during the era when they were in business (e.g. Aeroamerica, defunct in 1982; Dutch East India Company, defunct in 1799). Plus, newspapers.com indexes 12,100 newspapers from a pre-online era and the subject appeared nowhere in any of them. That said, while Arduin may itself be a reasonable target for deletion, I don't in principal have an issue with turning this into a redirect there instead of deleting totally. Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep or merge to Arduin as per User:Hugsyrup – I found a book source that discussed the company in detail, so that is a start, and I will see what else can be found. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

List of recurring Mario franchise enemiesEdit

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

Nominated per the suggestion of participants in the Zelda enemies AfD. The list fails WP:LISTN since it has a distinct lack of secondary sources to establish notability. It is Wikia level material that does not fit Wikipedia's current standards. I would also suggest potential WP:SALT of only the most prominent redirects, such as Bob-omb and Piranha plant, to prevent recreation if the article is deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete but Merge relevant content to - most likely - Mushroom Kingdom. Referencing the Zelda enemy AFD, we had Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures that would be an appropriate replacement for a list. I don't see a "Universe" article for Mario, but Mushroom Kingdom sufficiently covers it (and yes, I know there are some games that don't take place in it proper, but we're not Wikia, that's a trivial issue). That allows keeping brief one-two lines about various enemies, keep blue links to the notable ones, but cuts out the weight of in-universe descriptions. That type of list can then at least to be sourced to strategy guides or the like. --Masem (t) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Wikia cruft, not independently notable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete but merge relevant content per Masem. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - per Sergecross73; notability independent of the subject is not established. Take what's relevant to other articles and conduct a deletion - not a plausible redirect nor is the history valuable if the subject will only ever be in-universe, so an alternative to deletion is not practical here. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator. Barca (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect for edit history and links to items within the list. The list of recurring Zelda enemies was also redirected in the same vain. Utopes (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I see that somebody has undone the redirect at the Zelda article and the is being nominated for deletion. I couldn't care less there. But here, as somebody who had put in effort to clean up the article as best that I could, I can't support a full deletion of this article. I would rather redirect and protect it, as I do know that there are links to individual subheaders of the article. Merge at the least. Utopes (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But why? Not to be mean, but “I put a lot of work into it” isn’t a valid rationale for a merge/redirect, nor is anything else you said. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You can also continue said work at a fan Wiki if you so wish. That has no bearing on whether it should be here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados LugoEdit

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. Recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD by soft deletion (so I don't think it qualifies for G4) but essentially the same article, with the same non-RS sources and with exactly the same problems – fails WP:AUTHOR because all his work is self-published and has no reliable independent reviews, fails WP:ACTOR as an uncredited role in a short film, fails WP:CREATIVE as a participant in a non-notable local competition (see the previous AfD nomination for more detailed explanation). Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Recurring enemies in The Legend of ZeldaEdit

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

Basically Wikia-cruft level material that as a whole does not satisfy WP:GNG. The majority of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and the secondary ones are from Top-10 lists and the like. Most of the enemies, if they even have a source, only have 1. A lot of the information is also duplicated at Universe of The Legend of Zelda._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Compare to List of recurring Mario franchise enemies. (I have no opinion on either one of these, but my thoughts in the matter is that one or the other existing provides a WP:OTHERSTUFF issue.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

List of recurring Mario franchise enemies seems equally as crufty in my opinion, if not moreso. There are virtually no secondary sources commenting on any of the characters, just descriptions like a WP:GAMEGUIDE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: Feel free to nomination that one too if you desire. However, my concerns with either one of these being deleted is that there will be readers who attempt to look up the characters/enemies listed on these lists, get a WP:REDLINK (since all redirects towards these lists would then be eligible for WP:G8 in theory), and the articles that have been redirected to these lists due to lack of notability as standalone subjects will be recreated, WP:NOTWIKIA or not. These lists existing act as a magnet for their incoming redirects, helping ensure that these independently unnotable subjects do not get recreated again as articles. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Then WP:SALT the character names so they can't be recreated without a draft? In this case that doesn't apply though, since there is still Universe of The Legend of Zelda that everything redirects to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That Mario equivalent list is equally bad when it comes to independent notability. It shouldn’t exist either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - not remotely independently notable. Notable game series? Of course. That enemies of it separately notable? Not even close. The Mario variant suffers the same issues. Wikia level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge This information is already at Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures. Some reliable sources referenced now do mention some of the enemies, but most aren't referenced at all, so probably best to just redirect this to the other article and if anything isn't already there and worth keeping merge it over. Dream Focus 01:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The main problem is that the list in Universe of The Legend of Zelda is also cruft and should be excised from the article. So ultimately there would be nowhere to merge that would make any sense since it is unfit for merging. In fact the majority of that article needs a massive cleanup and addition of secondary sources as it predominantly depends on ingame quotes, interviews and Hyrule Historia (all WP:PRIMARY)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that article was originally located at Hyrule and it may make sense to move it back to that name so it can have a more focused subject, similar to Spira (Final Fantasy). Renaming it just brought on the addition of large amounts of cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - This is pure cruft, with nearly all of these entries not being sourced by reliable sources, but rather fan sites, game guides, or the games themselves. The very few entries here that could be argued to have any sort of notability are already covered at other articles. Nothing here is worth merging, and its an unlikely search term making a redirect pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per others. Wikia's exist for this exact thing. List of recurring Mario franchise enemies should also be officially nominated for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It now has been, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The section at Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures is sufficient to cover these, and even there, that needs some trim-down - we don't need to know how an enemy changed on each iteration of the game. --Masem (t) 17:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a section on Zelda enemies already exists in the Universe of The Legend of Zelda article. I am uncertain of the title's value as a redirect as I would not imagine that someone will type out the entire thing in the search bar. The Universe of The Legend of Zelda article requires a lot of attention, but that is a separate issue from this AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, The article itself does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Away from keyboardEdit

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. In the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, I can't see how this could ever be expanded to the point where it would be anything other than a dictionary definition. Moving to Wiktionary is unlikely to be an option as the phrase doesn't meet Wiktionary's requirement for idiomaticity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this could become more than a WP:DICTDEF. I seem to have created this (before its first deletion) while cleaning up the dab page AFK.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- It has never been deleted, note. I thought about the history merger that you suggested, but I actually disagree with this being the primary topic at AFK and think that the disambiguation would be better back in place there, no history fiddling necessary. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment - It seems like there would be a central glossary or other kind of list that this could point to, but the best I see is glossary of Internet-related terms. It's not unrelated to that, but it doesn't seem to be used much for informal acronyms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like the list I was searching for now lives at wiktionary:Appendix:English internet slang. Eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  - It's worth looking at all of the prior AFD discussion around that, including the several discussions of List of Internet slang (AfD discussion) List of Internet slang phrases (AfD discussion), List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication (AfD discussion), and things like P33n (AfD discussion), Roflcopter (AfD discussion), ROFL Attack (AfD discussion), and LOL (Internet slang) (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's Glossary of video game terms and the term is already there. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Restore to previous AfD consensus. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus at the previous AfD (in 2006) was to redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. That was later moved to Wiktionary and, as Rhododendrites says, is now wikt:Appendix:English internet slang, whereas the title now redirects to Internet slang. As the former mentions this phrase and the latter doesn't, should we presume you're suggesting a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
ISBN 9780691168340 chapter 4 might be useful for talking about this as a concept, relating it to immersion and presence in virtual worlds. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's merely a WP:DICDEF and AFK (disambiguation) should be moved to AFK._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect don't delete. This is something people search for. 2,738 pageviews in the past 90 days. Just aim it like they did back in October 2006‎ when it first went to AFD. Dream Focus 01:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There would be no target to redirect to since List of Internet slang phrases was already transwikied._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  - wikt:AFK Dream Focus 03:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    - Then you should clarify it's a soft redirect. Personally I'm not really feeling it since the Wiktionary entry phrases it as "away from the keyboard" and it's pretty easy for a redirect to be reversed later and for the entire debate to happen all over again._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      - As indeed happened in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to glossary of Internet-related terms or glossary of video game terms. Peter James (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to glossary of video game terms#A. It's in there, it belongs there, it gets the amount of space it deserves (i.e., a couple of sentences) - all good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There's probably something to eke out of Boellstorff (aforecited), ISBN 9781848824775 chapter 5, ISBN 9780198704515 chapter 2 (which cites Boellstorff itself), and some others; but I have not been able to work out what it is in the time that I have had and thus what this could be renamed and refactored into. There is a concept here. It's not the specific state of being away from the keyboard; but that is one facet of the overall concept, including the fact that it does not necessarily literally mean what it says but can imply using one's computer for something else. It is not solely presence in virtual worlds, either, as it covers presence in other areas too, such as chats. Of course, the article at hand gives zero indication of this or what the route for writing is. Uncle G (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Genesis3DEdit

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

Non-notable game engine, fails WP:GNG. I have been able to find a handful of passing mentions of the sort as "This game uses Genesis3D", but that is all, and very few of those. Nothing that specifically discusses the engine that I can tell. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. While there are a few sources available, nothing qualifies as significant coverage. Lordtobi (✉) 14:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I found three sources via Google Books. Game Design Foundations by Roger E. Pedersen, Guide to Graphics Software Tools by Jim X. Chen, and 3D Game Art by Luke Ahearn (can't see the actual content, but I can see the index which shows that an entire chapter (Ch. 8) is dedicated to the article's subject). --MrClog (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Eduard BadalutaEdit

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

The article was speedy deleted a year ago, recreated now, but I still do not see any notability. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete: No works that I can see treating him with significance. Also happy to see a merge+redirect of the single sentence with an RS to the RE2 article. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete total lack of significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Day of LoveEdit

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

Does not meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing to be found. Was deproded with a nonexistent rationale admitting it fails WP:GNG. The game released in English in 2004 so that reasoning does not hold.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 12:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-obsolescence Commodore 64 projectsEdit

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

Article seems to be written like an advertisement. The subject alone doesn't seem to be notable either to separate it from the Commodore 64 article. I found a few reliable sources upon a quick Google search on the Commodore 64 homebrew scene but I don't think it's enough coverage to establish general notability and it's only worthy of a short sub-section in its parent subject's article at best. letcreate123 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. letcreate123 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

delete under WP:TNT. I'm not sure this could even make for a standalone article, as this could be covered in the main article, but it's current state needs a complete overwrite for it to meet policies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete any information here should be within the main commodore 64 article. I don't think there's articles for any other retro consoles emulations Seasider91 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- C64 seems to be the main retro target for e.g. new games. But I would be very happy for someone to make an similar article for e.g. the Amiga. Thue (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
keep as main author of article. The claim that there is no reliable sources is false. For example from the New York Times: A Toy With a Story For Game Makers, Inspiration In the Soul of an Old Machine (and these were not hard to find). The C64 Direct-to-TV sold 70,000 units on its first day, so new retro hardware for the C64 is quite popular. Just for game publishing, there are multiple publishers publishing new C64 games - surely that qualifies for an article. Thue (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete The article creator needs to learn the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one. Even if it is notable enough, it needs to be WP:TNT and rewritten to comply with Wikipedia standards._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not think New York Times which I linked is a reliable source? Thue (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  - I think that all the sources in the article are dubious since they are either WP:PRIMARY or unreliable (not to mention incorrectly formatted). A couple of NY Times articles will not prove independent notability over something that could merely be added to Commodore 64 main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep The New York Times article, etc, prove it meets the general notability guidelines just fine. Dream Focus 01:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT. The NYT source is nice, but the article itself is almost entirely written according to fansites, and honestly the article reads like something that a fansite would host. It should be greatly trimmed/streamlined and put into the main article - a spin out is unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Galaga X6Edit

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

Page fails to meet notability guidelines. The only source present doesn't look to be reliable. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

~~Redirect to Galaga, as the name rings very familiar.~~ the game is an offshoot of Galaga as this and the original are spaceship shooters. Nower603 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Strong delete - No coverage whatsoever from any reliable sources to establish notability (a Google search on it only yielded shopping listings). --letcreate123 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG due to not having enough reliable sources and significant coverage. Blake44 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yuzu (emulator)Edit

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

No evidence of any real notability, just another emulator. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete The references in the article don't demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and my standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) reveal nothing not contained therein. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete, per my same argument over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU - not enough reliable sources and WP:NOTJUSTYET/WP:TOOSOON. Until these two emulators get significant coverage, it's highly unlikely a Wikipedia article about that emulator is going to survive. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Theinstantmatrix: I've gathered several sources below if you would like to look at them below and potentially reevaluate your vote. There are more than that, such as Rappler and The Next Web, but I kept it to 10 in my comment. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I'm seeing plenty of reliable sources discussing yuzu (edit: and providing coverage in sufficiently significant depth), including PC Gamer (twice), Gizmodo, HotHardware, eTeknix, Kotaku, TechSpot, Game Revolution, Tom's Guide, Forbes, etc. I'm extremely skeptical that the nonimator performed even cursory WP:BEFORE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are reliable, but not significant. It's a case of WP:TOOSOON._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

They're clearly, unequivocally significant per WP:GNG; literally every single one of those articles features yuzu as its main subject, and that's just what I found through 6 minutes of searching online. This emulator has received significant coverage in a number of articles from several reliable, independent sources since its creation, and as Dream Focus aptly notes, WP:TOOSOON makes absolutely no sense here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Significant" does not mean that a prominent site mentioned it. That's a reliable source, but a decent amount has to be written on the subject that goes beyond just mentioning it and what it does. I'm not seeing that. Also, Dream Focus votes Keep on almost everything regardless of merit, so I wouldn't take his word as gospel with regards to policy and you should read it yourself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What's with this personal insult? I clicked upon all the links posted and saw significant coverage. This isn't just announcements about it, but also mentions of when they made the bestselling game on the Switch run perfectly on it, etc. So over a period of time it still gets mentioned. Significant is context not just the number of words. Dream Focus 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's true that significance is not 100% guaranteed to be based on wordcount, but it almost always is. Usually very short articles don't indicate significant coverage, because significant coverage spends a long time talking about the subject and going in-depth._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"and you should read [the policy] yourself" I already had when I agreed with Dream Focus, so I don't understand your baseless assumption that I hadn't. Moreover, I'm aware that Dream Focus is an inclusionist (I should note that I'm usually not); that doesn't in any way detract from the merit of their argument. I'm just going to get this out of the way so I can stop arguing against these erroneous, red herring definitions of 'significant': ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And like that, we have at least 10 different articles from reliable, independent sources featuring this emulator as their primary (and, for most of them, only) subject; regardless of their shorter-than-average length, each of them clearly exceeds a 'trivial mention' and constitutes significant coverage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Significant" mean more then a couple of paragraphs that say "this is coming soon".Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how many of those articles you actually read or even clicked on, but half of the 10 I presented cover progress being made on the emulator. Moreover, the other five are still significant coverage of the then-upcoming emulator; that it was in its infancy doesn't somehow render its coverage insignificant. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

wp:crystal may also come into this. Do you have anything that indicates it is notable now?Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a crystal ball situation since as I have said, some of the sources given are after it was developed, it getting coverage for being able to run Super Mario Odyssey. Dream Focus 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Then there is a serious problem with our article, as it does not give any release date and implies it is in fact still largely in development. Its website however does not imply it "yuzu is an experimental open-source".Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It is still in development (which the website explains had you read into the second paragraph: "[...] with builds actively maintained [...]"). WP:CRYSTAL – as Dream Focus once again aptly points out – in absolutely no way applies here as you speciously assert, because not a single word of the existing article is making any sort of speculation on yuzu's development, and the subject's coverage at this point extends beyond just an announcement of its development's commencement. Please actually read the policies you're citing. "Do you have anything that indicates it is notable now?" Not only do you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what constitutes "significant coverage" and what WP:CRYSTAL is, but you also seem to fail to realize that notability is not temporary, making the question "is it notable now?" entirely irrelevant (if not completely nonsensical) in the context of Wikipedia's notability policy. Moreover, the article clearly meets WP:SUSTAINED as demonstrated by the sources above. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It may become notable enough for an article in the future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep Clicking on the reliable sources found by TheTechnician27 I see some give significant coverage so this easily passes the general notability guidelines. The too soon arguments makes no sense since its already out, and has been talked about for over a year. Dream Focus 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no deadline on how soon is too soon. Only that it has to be enough to get significant coverage. Significant as in: something more than "oh hey, this exists, check it out" which those articles are._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Too soon" is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. And it has ample coverage now Dream Focus 19:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep but heavily rework the article to be at the very least longer than a stub, otherwise Move to draftspace. TheTechnician27 has provided plenty of reliable sources proving and establishing notability but the article itself does not reflect this, since right now it's basically just "this thing exists". --letcreate123 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep Yuzu was the first emulator and is the one currently furthest along in development. Usually an emulator remains obscure until it can run full games not available on any other platform. The emulator is just now at that stage and actively being developed, I think the article right on time, not too soon. Lunamoff (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Contents

Video games-related deletionsEdit