Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Sales charts
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Article for Improvement
  Voting
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles

viewtalkeditchanges

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:
  1. 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, 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games.
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:
Purge page cache watch

See also Games-related deletions.


Video games-related deletionsEdit

Gamers' Choice AwardsEdit

Gamers' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

One-off award show whose only claim to fame seems to be that it caused a lawsuit between its creators[1]? While widely reported on, it appears that the vast majority of sources, other than the Variety one, are churnalistic re-reporting of press releases. Is the Variety article enough to establish notability? I'm of the opinion that it does not. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It is probably the fact that there was legal action that made the show notable. Obviously I can't use court documents but I can tell right now that the case appears to have been dismissed though there's still issues over attorney's fees and the like. While the awards themselves are churned from press releases, that's usually the same on most other award ceremony lists, but the fact they cover them and decouple the press release format for their own articles show they have some care to the matter. --Masem (t) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The lawsuit is 100% not over. Burg has been intentionally using any available means to delay it to avoid having to produce any discovery, hoping he will be able to wait it out. He has claimed sickness, travel, basically anything imaginable. A trial date was scheduled to be issued on 3/22 but this was delayed due to the coronavirus situation, a trial date will be announced in June 2020. JupiterReturn (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)JupiterReturn

  • Keep - This has been a constant NPOV sounding board for the above user who has gone as far to accuse me of being Berg since they cannot use Wikipedia to WP:RGW. The show received in-depth coverage and aired on CBS as a nationally televised award show. It meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete All of the claims within this article hide that the only reason this had a network television timeslot at all was that it used brokered programming time (read the related article CBS Sports Spectacular, which usually follows CBS's NFL games when they don't have a doubleheader game weekend and is a time-buy slot most weeks), rather than the merits of the ceremony itself, to get on TV, which is usually a broad disqualifier for an article here. CBS not only just collected money from the organizers of this ceremony and sold them time (thus why west of the Rockies it aired wherever an otherwise indifferent CBS affiliate could fit it in), but they offered no basic editorial input on the ceremony because the organizer, outside of making sure it met CBS's standards and practices (here 'don't swear, do FCC-license threatening things, or show nudity'), was completely responsible for how it turned out. It's the equivalent of an infomercial, and besides the poor organization and overall show, it doesn't have much WP:N for the actual awards itself. It didn't have a 2019 ceremony. Outside an entry in Video game award, this doesn't justify its article link and can be compressed easily into a smaller paragraph there. Nate (chatter) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1964 (emulator)Edit

1964 (emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

An old emulation project that (according to its GitHub page) has been abandoned sixteen years ago. All sources but "Emulator Zone" presently used in the article are primary (a relevant tag was added nine years ago), so I did a WP:BEFORE:

  • The Emulator Zone source only has a passing mention of the project among many others in the same category and links to an equally brief overview site with a download link.
  • In terms of reliable sources, I was only able to find a passing mention in this 2009 list of emulators by German magazine GameStar, with the same list cross-posted to sister site GamePro in 2012.
  • There is another passing mention in this list by Lifehacker that only spans one sentence. Although the reliability of Lifehacker has not been assessed, it is part of the same network as some other reliable sources like Kotaku, so I'm including it here for documentation.
  • The Internet Archive has no results and Google Scholar's only hit is this. Although I cannot access the full text, the abstract suggests that it primarily includes Wikipedia-sourced content.

Overall, I am seeing a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore a lack of notability. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, warranting deletion. IceWelder [] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Joel (The Last of Us)Edit

Joel (The Last of Us) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article does not demonstrate notability in any way. The "Character development and design" section is copied directly from Development of The Last of Us; "Attributes" has no useful or notable information; "Appearance" is just plot straight from List of The Last of Us characters; and "Reception" is copied directly from The Last of Us#Reception and is only about his relationship with another character, not him as an individual (with an extra listicle on "sexy video game characters"). Fellow game character Ellie has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability, but the same cannot be said about Joel, and his coverage is best left at the characters article. – Rhain 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Rhain 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Rhain 00:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Last of Us, this feels a bit like WP:FANCRUFT dibbydib boop or snoop 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Rhain:, I noticed you created the article on Ellie which is now a GA article. Both characters received the same amount of coverage and awards. Both pass WP:GNG, is covered by multiple reliable sources, and has similar influence on gaming culture. Joel article could be massively expanded and pass GA. Valoem talk contrib 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Having researched the game, its development, and reception, I can confidently say that Joel has not received the same amount of coverage (or awards) as Ellie, nor has he had the same impact on gaming culture. There’s a reason I’ve never split the article myself for the topic; the character is simply not notable enough. – Rhain 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Notability is based on secondary reliable sources, having the exact same level of coverage is not a requirement. In most of the sources which mention Ellie, Joel is mentioned as well, for example in this Game Informer source Joel is mentioned:
Joel was nominated for "British Academy Video Games Awards" British Academy Games Award for Performer and Golden Joystick Awards for Best Moment, "Joel's loss". The character won Spike Video Game Awards's Best Voice Actor for Troy Baker. This character undisputedly passes out GNG guidelines and with the second game being release this character will only receive further coverage. Valoem talk contrib 12:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I never claimed that the character had to have the "exact same level of coverage", but Joel doesn't even come close to the GNG, in my opinion. In most of the sources to which you refer, including the one you've quoted and highlighted, the discussion is about the relationship between Joel and Ellie; there is not enough independent coverage on Joel as an individual character to warrant a separate article. As for awards, I should clarify that Troy Baker won 1/3 notable awards for his role as Joel, compared to Ellie/Ashley Johnson's 5/5 (not that awards are too significant a demonstration of notability anyway). – Rhain 14:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Embodiment of Scarlet DevilEdit

Embodiment of Scarlet Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:DEL#7 and WP:DEL#8. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:DEL#7,WP:DEL#8:

Perfect Cherry Blossom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperishable Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phantasmagoria of Flower View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mountain of Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subterranean Animism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Undefined Fantastic Object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ten Desires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Dealing Character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legacy of Lunatic Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hidden Star in Four Seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Immaterial and Missing Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antinomy of Common Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nightvour (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ambivalent, if not weak delete. While I understand that it's likely these pages may be deleted due to insignificant coverage in sources, the franchise itself is absolutely notable (Medium article, PC Gamer article 1, PC Gamer article 2). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems like it would be good to hear from some Japanese-speakers in this discussion. There may be japanese-language sources us non-speakers are missing. Also the Japanese-language articles seem better sourced, but I can't tell if the sources are of any value. ApLundell (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Even if this content isn't notable (I haven't looked), there exists at least one redirect target. WP:ATD and all that. On the note of notability, mass nominations tend to drive people away from assessing each on its merits as should happen. Did the nominator perform a WP:BEFORE check? --Izno (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They clearly meet WP:DEL#8 and the nominator has provided no indication that they have even attempted to find out if they meet WP:DEL#7. Some of them could possibly be merged and redirected into the main Touhou Project article, but that is not something that needs to concern AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

MaximilianMusEdit

MaximilianMus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

this is a non-notable youtuber, and unlikely to pass notability. 136.27.38.4 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough sources talking about him significantly. SK2242 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete with the amount of you tube used as a source the statement "Wikipedia is not you tube" comes to mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FIFA Online 3Edit

FIFA Online 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nearly all the sources appear to be from the company. From a Google search I didn't see any articles that looked like were not simply reposts of press releases from the company. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
comment - Polygon, Korean Herald, Sportskeeda and IGN all at least talk about the game in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - notability is questionable, seems a promotional article as per the sources added. Drat8sub (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a problem with overall notability in web search, clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE, Lee pointed to some decent links above, even businesswire.com wrote an article and that's saying something. Article is in a poor state, but that is not a reason to eliminate it. There are lots of other links for the game in other language sources, seems like their is some reception from Asian websites. I don't think nominator did an extensive enough search! Govvy (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Govvy: I would appreciate it if you would remove the accusation clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE. That is not true. As I said in the beginning, I did a Google search (this plus some others) and I didn't find anything substantial (Please look at the first 20 entries). I saw the Business Wire post, which read like a press release, and I quickly dismissed it as WP:PROMO: Business Wire's about page says "Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure."
As to the sources provided by Lee Vilenski, I tried looking at them, and two of the four links don't work. I am not sure if the other two count as WP:RS or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you got so offended! I really don't think you did a good enough web search. I only loaded three of the four links, but for Sport Skeeda, my search AI adjust to this link. koreaherald.com, didn't load. But I certainly felt I saw enough sources in a google search that makes me feel the article should pass GNG. Seems like it was more pushed for the Asian market, saw reviews of the game I could not read or translate. Example articles for the push to the Asian market like techinasia.com, bangkokpost.com. This article is one month old from Indonesia [2] about termination in Asia to make way for FIFA Online 4. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that you revised your meaning in the response to something softer. I find it irritating to be accused of not doing a WP:BEFORE, when I have done it, having spent a significant amount of time on it, and the sources I looked at did not appear to me to meet WP:GNG. Editors have different experiences and knowledge of sources, especially in fields they do not know much about. I have virtually no knowledge of current video games or the best sources for it, so it's a lot harder and time consuming for me to access sources like www.polygon.com and IGN, that may just be sites used to promote games or user-generated content, and even mainstream publications like bangkokpost.com, that may also be user-generated rather than truly WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. When I see an article like this that is almost all WP:PROMO from the company, and I can't find enough sources I feel for sure to be good enough establish WP:GNG, I think I should be able to submit it to WP:AfD to have other editors look at it, without being accused of failing to do WP:BEFORE, when I did, and nothing in clearly reliable sources in WP:RS/P like NYT, WaPo, etc. comes up. It just seems an unnecessary attack another editor's good faith attempt to get rid of articles that appear to be WP:PROMO.
I brought it here so that others who know the sources better can decide, and I appreciate you offering sources. I would just rather you provide the sources rather than attack the editors who didn't find them and who are making a good faith attempt to rid the encyclopedia of WP:PROMO.
As to the sources you are providing: I would be willing to change my !vote to a keep, if you can make it clear why you think the sources are WP:RS -and- more specifically why you believe any particular published article is not user-generated, a press release, promo, or pay-to-play "news" advertising. I do appreciate your help and experience in that regard. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I do see that IGN is in WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources seem to be promotional, per nominator's rationale, and there is no evidence of notability, per GiantSnowman. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Boet FighterEdit

Boet Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG Aasim 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aasim 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a decent amount of reviews for the game. Seems like it is fairly popular considering it's from South Africa. Wouldn't be surprised if there more that's not popping up for me. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Most of these are not reliable sources. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per nom. Article lacks reliable sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources ([3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8], etc.). To coin a phrase^^^ Most of these are reliable sources ——Serial # 12:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Critical Hit is explicitly listed as unreliable at VGRS. SACoronavirus doesn't have an obvious indicator of editorial oversight. South African might be reasonably reliable given their commitment to local editorial practices. IOL has no obvious oversight but looks reasonably reliable given the sources under the hood. Cape Town looks local. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty meh for me. Not enthused by the quality of the sources offered. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Xenia (emulator)Edit

Xenia (emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, even with the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches. Xenia gets mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but these are simply that: trivial mentions. It also appears on a few listicles, but most of them seem to be published by sketchy SEO affiliate sites. Then there are the press releases, download sites, forum posts, YouTube videos, and other low-quality sources you tend to find on software. What we need is significant and independent and reliable coverage and I'm not seeing it. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The emulator has been the primary subject of numerous articles written in reliable news outlets that extends beyond trivial mention. The following reliable sources have covered the subject in significant, non-trivial ways.
--Odie5533 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
DSOG and CinemaBlend are unreliable, WccfTech situational, and the reliability of VGR, Happy Gamer and SegmentNext has not yet been assessed. Even then, reviewing these sources, it is clear that all of them (reliable and unreliable ones) are either rehashes of news bits ("Xena dev team has done X") or reports of one or another game now being playable on the emulator, usually from configurations by third parties. None constitute significant coverage of the emulator itself. IceWelder [] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You declare CinemaBlend is unreliable, but Ars Technica, IGN, Newsweek, USA Today, Deseret News, Herald-Standard, The Canberra Times, Patriot-News, ScreenRant, DigitalSpy, and countless other news outlets rely on their reporting. I believe they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
CinemaBlend has been discussed at RSN and VGRS and found to be generally unreliable. But even if it wasn't, the source is unquestionably trivial: there's one sentence about Xenia that gives no real information, a pull-quote from the developer, and 5-6 paragraphs about game system architecture. Xenia is mentioned two more times in the article, but never with any detail. That's true of all coverage of Xenia, save for extremely niche, unreliable sources. And that's the point of GNG: if reliable sources can't be bothered to cover a subject in significant detail, why should we? Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not the point of GNG. If we actually cared about removing articles that had essentially no reliable sources, then we would remove the hundreds of thousands of no-name athletes from this website. The GNG serves to pointlessly restrict this website. This article has more sources than 90% of Wikipedia articles. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The point of GNG is to stop Wikipedia from being flooded with thousands of articles that will never go beyond one or two sourcable sentences. As an encyclopedia, such restrictions (if you can even call them "restrictions") are perfectly reasonable. If you think that GNG should be changed, please bring the issue to GNG, not here. IceWelder [] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, most of these sources only mentions Xenia in passing. None of them is actual about the emulator itself and doesn't provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill news articles and articles detailing how one specific person got one specific game to run on the emulator does not pass GNG. Even the few sources that focus on the topic fail to go into any detail about it. IceWelder [] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep IceWelder pulled up good sources and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. It's notable enough. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You probably skipped a line there. I did not pull up any sources but actually explained why those given by Odie5533 are far from sufficient to demonstrate notability. If have no reliable sources with which we could build a proper article for it, we shouldn't have an article at all. Please try to use the reliable sources from Odie's comment to rewrite the article. You will find that, beyond like one feature, some run-of-the-mill news and a bunch of games that have been emulated through it, there is nothing significant about the engine itself that you could possibly write from these sources alone. IceWelder [] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP The coverage of it in Polygon and elsewhere is enough to prove this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you actually checked the sources? Are they not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL or WP:PASSING cases? Do they cover WP:SIGCOV? No, they don't. In terms of reliable sourcing (not considering thr aforementioned issues), the article is currently complete. I went over exactly these issues above multiple times. IceWelder [] 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Two sources that don't even offer significant coverage doesn't constitute notability. The subject is best left as just a mention on the article for the Xbox 360, it doesn't need its own page. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I clicked the link, and looking at the sources, it makes me wonder whether you actually clicked on them. The first source is already in the article, and is a 1:1 rehash of information provided by the dev. The second source only says that Xenia "has a new update" and then goes on to talk about someone completely unrelated has used the game to get an unrelated game to run somehow. Both sources were discussed above already and both sources do not constitute significant coverage, but you probably knew that already. IceWelder [] 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Two sources don't automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. Could not find much from reliable publications, either. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Little to no significant coverage. You can't build an article on two sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete – No notable sources, it's a topic that could be mentioned on the xbox 360 page itself. QueerFilmNerdtalk
  • Redirect to Xbox 360, where the subject can be covered. JOEBRO64 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least Redirect to Xbox 360. The article appears to suffer the same problems as the one in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU exactly a year ago. Not counting the Red Dead Redemption fan remaster project, even after looking it up on Google via a link above, I can't find any sources that are more than just "Game(s) emulated on PC/playable on Xenia". theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Xbox 360 as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep — but most importantly revert to the state before the article was made deletion-worthy by removal of all content coming from the most informative sources (first-party ones, simply because gaming websites considered reliable do not care about information that was deleted from the article because it's not their purpose and goal) in this context. Triang3l (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Note to the closing admin: This user has disclosed a conflict of interest. IceWelder [] 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep — It is the only tool able to efficiently imitates Xbox 360 on PC 1 2, it is the best Xbox 360 emulator for PC. 3456 It is capable of playing approximately 170 Xbox 360 games. 7 There is taken huge rigor, compared to other articles, look to other articles in Free emulation software. For example 1964 (emulator) and others? Xenia is also on Emulator-zone.com and SourceForge.net. In my opinion, the "Template:More citations needed" would be enough. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Bug Fables: The Everlasting SaplingEdit

Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable indie game. One brief article about its trailer (and two non-independent sources) is not sufficient to support a claim of notability. BilCat (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me. Phediuk (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The main problem about this one is that the coverage it gets from reliable sources is purely WP:ROUTINE and expected for any video game announced: "to launch", "announced", "set to release", "out today", "comes to a certain platform" and other things, with basic info about the game slightly altered from press releases. That being said, I found a very good source detailing the game's development at Red Bull [9], but that is it sadly. The Gamer seems to be situational leaning to unreliable source per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER, questionably/likely unreliable like Go Nintendo and Nintendo Insider mentioned here and everything else is in lines of the RPS/Destructoid/NLife/GRadar routine sources posted above (also RPGSite, 4Gamer or Video Games Chronicle). That led me to conclusion that this game fails WP:GNG. It may be notable after the consoles release at the end of this month, but not now and at this point of time. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - The game is significant. -Splinemath (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Simply asserting significance is meaningless without sources to back it up. ♠PMC(talk) 07:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete (or back to draft). I agree with Jovanmilic97, it's WP:CHURNALISM, the same bit of information in slightly different words. There's nothing to go on, really. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON and move back to draft, so when it gets released it might get some coverage. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has a Metacritic rating that includes two video game reliable sources that complement those provided by Phediuk: RPG Site and Vandal. TheGamer also reviewed it but the WikiProject does not yet have a consensus on their reliability. Anarchyte (talkwork) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Striking my vote due to the newfound reference at RPGSite (which appeared after the AfD has started!). That, the Vandal source and Red Bull article should make it for a WP:GNG pass now. Plus, I am positive it will be reviewed by Nintendo Life and/or Nintendo World Report when the game releases on Switch. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Consensus has been reached as Keep.-Splinemath (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep As expected, more coverage in WP:VG/RS has appeared after the console release, [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Combined with sources above, it now meets WP:GNG without any question. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The game has gotten much more exposure thanks to the console release, and the article's pageviews have greatly increased since the beginning of May. More people are interested in the game, so keeping this article is the right thing to do. The Switch version already has amazing reviews. from critics. Condontdoit296 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)