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

Anton Rayne

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

Redirect undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you nominated me for the deletion of my post about a video game character named Anton Rayne. We cannot have coverage of too many sources when the character is only text-based. I did an undone redirect since I find it unfair that the character cannot have a wiki. The source used was mostly from the game's codex (which you can read in-game this is just an online version) and their developers so it is a reliable source, site from Torpor Games themselves(https://codex.torporgames.com/). All information on the character is really what games tell you about him and nothing added more. I really find it unfair since Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary of everything not just important characters. This character is a community loved one as are all others. I saw the complaints and comparisons to nazism. I of course dont justify it, it is probably a "Suzerain" fan like me.

I am looking foward to a response, Andrew(AntonRad) AntonRad (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community reception towards a character is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, as we are not a fandom site. Video game characters (or anything, for that matter) generally only get articles if there is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I understand if you might be frustrated or find it unfair that your article was nominated for deletion, but this has been the widely accepted standard for a long time. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree we need to look at the characters objectively and writing Anton like that needs info mostly from the games codex which i did, but i struggle to understand that Anton Rayne was mentioned in suzerain video game wiki and its not ok to write a short article about the games protagonist?

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suzerain (video game): Redirect to the game, I don't find critical discussion of the character in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate you concern about redirection and the characters media popularity, but this was made just for those who did read Suzerain video game article to click on Anton Rayne and find out about him with more information about the games protagonist, but thanks for the comment

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. The article creator seems to completely misunderstand what an average article for a video game character is supposed to be, and that Wikipedia is not a fandom site. Seeing the nomination get compared to Nazism made my day, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I hope i didnt do too bad to be honest. I didnt want it to be seen as a fandom page, as i wanted it to be mostly from games codex. Anton Rayne is mentioned in Suzerain wiki page and i thought it would be good to create one for the protagonist.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Nonsense article. No indication of notability at all. Mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne; the rest was obviously AI-generated. C F A 💬 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

thank you for the comment. You are not right in the first part its not mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne since that is not that much of a reliable source, side from the characters codex, whats mostly copied from is the characters codex in game which can be found on Torpors website! As for this the "rest was obviously AI-generated" AI doesnt even know to write about Suzerain i think, but i ll give it to ya the section for Antons policies really looks AI.

Best, Andrew. AntonRad (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination fails BEFORE; a check of Google News shows a piece in PC Gamer with an in-depth review of the game explaining this character. There are other hits, not an overwhelming number and some of them look iffy, but clearly not zero easy-to-find RS coverage. We know from Commander Shepard that it's possible to write an article about the role a player assumes in an RPG game, so really, the proper assertion here should be that there's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, aside from the game, not that no coverage exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i appreciate your honesty and i do agree to you to some point. Since it Anton Rayne is mentioned in suzerain wiki article i think it was ok to make one about him. There's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, which is true to be fair but that's exactly why i wrote it from the players perspective, since player does everything Anton does in Suzerain.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suzerain (video game) - What sources there are specifically on this character are not enough to justify a split from the main topic of the game. The source found by Jclemens can be added to the main game article, which needs to have its reception section beefed up, but nothing from this current article should be merged, as it is devoid of any reliable, secondary sources actually supporting any of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id Tech 2 (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Id Tech 2" should just redirect to the topic at Id_Tech#id_Tech_2, and so this dab is not needed anymore. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Id Tech 2 already redirects to Id Tech#id Tech 2, which is all we need. PamD 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Id Tech#id Tech 2 already handles this topic, as stated by PamD. The article doesn't disambiguate much, it just lists the game engines using said software, plus there's only 3, and one of them is a game. I'd say this belongs in a list article, but there's not much to list. MK at your service. 09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ventrella

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. The sourcing on the article is almost entirely primary, and what secondary sources do exist are either not independent or do not cover the subject in depth. I also couldn't find any sources to establish notability either, unfortunately. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a lot of almost but not quite bits here. I found this on the academic deletion sorting list but he appears not to be primarily an academic and although he has one workshop publication with triple-digit citations [1] the rest do not give him a strong enough citation record for WP:PROF#C1. He has one book, Virtual Body Language, for which I didn't find any reviews; I would need multiple reviews of multiple books to consider notability through WP:AUTHOR. The article as nominated contains no WP:GNG-passing sources. The best I found in my searches was [2], a local newspaper story from 2015 about a startup he founded with some depth of coverage of Ventrella himself. I did also find one group work in MoMA that he contributed to, not enough by itself for WP:ARTIST. We could consider a redirect, if we had a viable redirect target, but neither There (virtual world) nor Gene Pool (software) currently look viable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The AfD from 2007 actually got it (mostly) right, there was no coverage about the individual despite hundreds of hits... In the almost 20 yrs since, I can only find primary sourcing or a few social media sites. Source 21 in the article is the only RS, the rest aren't anything we'd use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darkworks

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

Not finding evidence the company passes WP:NCORP; the only sources around, even in gaming magazines, are trivial mentions, corporate announcements and interviews. Almost everything about them is in the context of the Alone in the Dark reboot and I Am Alive. Was created by a WP:SPA and of unclear notability since then, suggesting some level of WP:SPAM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears relevant for Video games in France: Gamekult" "De "Alone in the Dark" à "I am Alive" : la malheureuse histoire de DarkWorks", "Cinq studios français allient leur force", "Antoine Villette", thegameeffect: "Behind the Scenes: I Am Alive's Development Disaster", Libération. IgelRM (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayeah Games

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

I am not seeing evidence that this studio passes WP:NCORP. It was created by a WP:SPA so it seems like open and shut WP:SPAM unless someone can bring up evidence it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage ~~except for a single article about its game published before the game was even released. This article was copied across a few websites.~~ The article appears to be based on a press release, so even that coverage is not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keemokazi

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

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Entertainment, Syria, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canderous Ordo

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

Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what very little is actually cited to reliable secondary sources is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I think a redirect is better than outright deletion as this is a viable search term that people would use and there is a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again seems to be the easy way out. Personally, I’d delete, but that seems not to be the consensus. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to tag the article with {{copyvio-revdel}}, assuming this AfD is closed as redirect.
1. The initial re-creation revision has 91.7% similarity with the Fandom page linked by Pokelego999, with most of the Development and Fictional character biography sections highlighted.
  1. The violation can be fixed by providing attribution using {{Fandom content}}, but the apparent consensus here is that the content is not usable and should be removed by redirecting.
  2. Before tagging, I will copy the sources to Talk:Canderous Ordo. References do not require attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT), so this will not interfere with deletion.
2. The creator has been indefinitely blocked for WP:Copyright violations (policy). There may be additional unidentified violations.
Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion. If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with gyro features

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

Seems like stealth WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, as there are too many games with gyro features to reliably list without it being undue effort for editors, including games that use gyro controls for completely trivial things, like emoting in Bloodborne. It is also written like an essay. This is the kind of over-listification we don't need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.

I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.

I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.

I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.

If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.

If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.

I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.

I think you should take a real close read of WP:OR and WP:RS. BrigadierG (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list would be massive it was correctly populated with all the Wii and Nintendo Switch games out there. There's mobile games, VG games, etc etc. The scope won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone reading the actual page or any of my comments? The Wii does not have a gyro sensor. A very limited list of games of that platform would be included on the list, more precisely 54 of 2560 games. This is written in the "Platform" section. The Wii Remote Wiki page also states the same information. In fact, the list that is already there, already includes most of the games that would qualify to be on that list, and that is certainly not every Wii game or every Switch game.
I would understand if the concern was that the explanation given on the article leaves room for this kind of misconception, so a solution would be to simply refine what's already there. But so far, the deletion requests are coming from people who don't know what Gyro is, this is a baseless concern, that is already addressed in the page itself, that only goes to show how people could benefit from the information contained on this article. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the term gyroscope peppered through the Wii Remote article, so I'm not sure I'm following how that's not a "gyro feature", but regardless, that was a relatively small part of my overall argument that would still stand even if the Wii is somehow not relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick correction: Only Wii Remote Plus or Wii Remote's Motion Plus accessory has gyroscope capabiltiies. Actual usage of gyorscope in Wii titles are rare (obviously) and it's often a requirement for these titles, but on top of my head: Wii Sports Resort and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

if you ask me: this entire "list" should become Gyroscopic control (gaming) while the *real* List of video games with gyro features should only be a list. and I have gave that feedback directly to Ivan in a separate social media site/group thingin. AL2009man (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wii Remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, uses only an accelerometer and an IR sensor. Gyro was indeed introduced later with the Motion Plus accessory, so the list of games that support this accessory is very limited. So no, not every Wii game uses gyro, Motion Controls (accelerometer) and Motion Controls (Gyroscopes) are 2 different things that lead to different results.

Regardless, as I said above. I understand the concern with the scope of this article, I feel the biggest problem is in the premise being too broad. If this article was called "List of console games with gyro aim", would that help? It would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library, low effort mobile games and VR games, thus clearing up any confusion with the title and premise. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still multiple issues to address:
This article uses a lot of unreliable/unusable sources. For example, any wikis would fail WP:USERG. That all needs to go.

Every entry needs to be reliably sourced. See WP:VG/S for the sorts of sources that are usable or unusable. Are we really going to be able to do this with this subject?

Lists should meet WP:NLIST. That requires better sourcing too. Are there WP:VG/S approved sources that do this?

I have serious concerns about all of these points, especially since, by your own admission, gyro is such a poorly documented feature. That is absolutelynot a way one would want to describe the subject of their Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Usually everything about gyro is documented by the community, because the stigma around this feature is enough for it to not be listed anywhere in any official capacity. I can try to address these issues, but if I can't, I guess I will have to search for another place to do this. Thank you so much for your time and for being the only person to actually reply to anything I asked on this site. I sent multiple messages throughout the process to my "mentor" to make sure if I wasn't falling on these pitfalls, and no one answered. Anyway, Thank you! Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move – after figuring out "gyros" isn't referring to Greek cuisine (somehow I totally misread the title at first), I think the prose section could be a good starting point for an article about gyroscopes in video games (after some major cleanup), but the list section is too indiscriminate. For the few games where gyroscopic features are particularly relevant, they could be discussed in prose. So I would support moving to draftspace, but only if the article is overhauled with a different focus and the article title is changed to the general topic instead of a list. AL2009man's suggestion of Gyroscopic control (gaming) would work, as would something like Gyroscopes in video games. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP: INDISCRIMINATE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Active

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

Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but ~~the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and~~ I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a permastub. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Computing. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my ignorance. Having fiddled with Amiga Forever for months now and uploaded dozens of Amiga-related items to the Internet Archive, I should have known better. I would have come across as less hyperbolic with language like, "The Amiga was long past its prime by 1999," and I have heard of AmigaOS 4 (it amazes me to know how such a formerly popular OS as the Amiga would receive continued support long after its original manufacturer had folded, and that was 30 years ago). Free Media Kid$ 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails to meet WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but additional sourcing would certainly be welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//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.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [3], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WPVG custom search engine yields additional coverage from Hardcore Gamer and 4gamer. Critical commentary is extremely weak, however, and the Way Too Many Games review should be removed. Time Extension and this article provide only two paragraphs combined of commentary (I have seen games with similarly lacking reception get articles though). Despite this, it looks to me that reliable sources have adequately covered pre-release and development information. This article is an odd case where its notability hinges heavily on coverage of its development but I think that still counts. LBWP (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do also have two industry professionals (from Supercell and SFB Games) praising the game here. It's indeed not much on the reception, but that's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable and any others who have found reliable sources mentioned above. MK at your service. 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is under a DYK so I'm not sure if that needs to be put on hold. JuniperChill (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has no bearing on this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since people are here voting keep based on news announcements, just want to point out that WP:SBST states that routine news reports are not significant coverage, even a large amount of them. For example that Hardcore Gamer announcement, the writer doesn't provide his own commentary: "The team behind the game stated", "According to Rik, one of the leads". It's a glorified press release. --Mika1h (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you're effectively citing something related to the notability of events, and the subject is not an event. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better thing to link to would have been WP:NOTNEWS, which essentially says the same thing but for all articles. Pointing people to Kickstarters counts as routine coverage for a gaming site, they do it all the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be said to apply to all articles, WP:NOTNEWS seems to be referring to events and people. A video game is in another class of articles. And this article is more than just an event or announcement. Oz346 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's for news events. The subject is not an event. Come on, people. Regulars should not be struggling with this. There are lots of times to cite NOTNEWS. Video games are not one of those times... Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Nuzlocke → Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nuzlocke Challenge → Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [4]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you didn't actually add the RfD to the delsort list. It has to be added manually over there, like this. In this case, I replaced a closed RfD with this one. Nickps (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects weren't tagged either. Nickps (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to do that. --Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information about it should be re-added to the article, it was wrongly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETURNTORED - Nuzlocke could easily be turned into an article, there's decent number of sources about it, eg: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and it's mentioned in 14 different Wikipedia articles. (My second preference would be keep/reinstate into Pokemon) BugGhost 🪲👻 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]