Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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 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.
  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 deletions[edit]

Dancing Stage Max[edit]

Dancing Stage Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this would meet WP:NVG, as I can find precious little about anywhere. This was unreferenced from its creation until I added a one source recently. However, this is the sole review (and as far as I can find source at all) that I can find. I found Nothing else on archive.org or google books, nothing on meta-critic or game-rankings, It doesn't even have a Mobygames page, instead simply being listed as an alias for Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2. Of course being a European game from 2005, it's more than possible there is a stack of EU VG-mags that aren't available online, but it's equally possible that playmainia was the only outlet to ever cover this version. The article says it was modeled after Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 in America and Dance Dance Revolution Strike in Japan, but neither of these games (which I would presume would be more notable) have articles either. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bez-MX[edit]

Bez-MX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed with the rationale that coverage of the game in two reviews meets WP:GNG - I was unable to find any additional reviews on Archive.org, and I think that two reviews is insufficient to show notability. The Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth, but the mention in Softline is very brief and is largely about the developer, and coverage of the game there may be summarized as 'this game is coming out at some point and is based on defense projects by Ronald Reagan'. The article could be redirected to List of Apple II games, but I don't think non-notable entries should be on the list. Pinging involved editors - article creator @BOZ:, @Cunard:, who removed the PROD, and @Cocobb8:, who added the PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if there are two potentially reliable journal sources, WP:AGEMATTERS. I don't see any lasting coverage of the video game after its release. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at WP:AGEMATTERS and that seems to be pertaining to older sources becoming less accurate over time, rather than having anything to do with needing more recent sources for lasting coverage. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AGEMATTERS doesn't apply here, that's more about the changing perception of events, not an old video game. You could argued WP:SUSTAINED perhaps. Not sure I agree with it, but it would be a plausible application at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - undecided on notability, but leaning towards not retaining the article. It's so short and vague that it hardly conveys anything to the reader, and it borders on COPYVIO territory in the way that the reception is largely lazy copy/pastes of review content. I could be persuaded otherwise if someone showed improvement was possible, but the article was created 4 years ago by an active editor, so I'm not hopeful that's happening. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Got non-trivial review coverage in Softalk and Computer Gaming World but still falls short of the typical threshold for passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says (in part):

    A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    • "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.
    • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ...
    Analysis of the sources and the general notability guideline

    Bez-MX received two reviews: a 499-word review from Computer Gaming World and an 834-word review from Softalk. Each of these sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline.

    The general notability guideline says that "multiple sources are generally expected". wikt:multiple defines the word as meaning "more than one". The "multiple sources" requirement is also met.

    There is no requirement to have more than two sources because the two sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about Bez-MX. These are from high-quality, highly-circulated gaming publications. Computer Gaming World had a circulation of 300,000, while Softalk had a circulation of 150,000.

    The two reviews Bez-MX received were published four months apart which is sustained coverage. However, there is no requirement for articles about creative works like games, books, films, and television shows to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time in having reviews published years later. That is because reviews are not the "Brief bursts of news coverage" discussed in the guideline. Reviews provide critical analysis of the creative work. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable.

    Sources

    1. Shaw, Luther (July–August 1982). "Micro-Reviews: Bez-MX". Computer Gaming World. Vol. 2, no. 4. pp. 34–35. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      This is a 499-word review of Bez-MX. The review notes: "The real strength of BEZ-MX is in the advanced game which requires planning. In addition to the elements in the basic game, players of the advanced game must maintain industrial production in a war situation. Players assign the population of their countries to work on the farm, factory, airfield, or city. You can have the people work in these areas (which will help keep military goods in production) or you can hide your population in shelters (perserving population but ending production)."

    2. Hunter, David (March 1982). "Reviews". Softalk. Vol. 2. p. 103. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      This is an 834-word review of Bez-MX. This page notes that David Hunter wrote the review. The review notes: "There is scoring in Bez-MX to determine who wins, though a low score does not necessarily indicate a badly played game. It is easy to rack up points bombing cities and farms, but destroying the more crucial things like the runway and factory are what help you win the game."

    3. Article that does not provide significant coverage:
      1. "New Players". Softline. Vol. 1, no. 2. November 1981. p. 2. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

        The article provides four words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The first two to look for are Bez-Mx and Bet-J, both based on current defense projects that President Reagan has given the go-ahead to in real life. Besnard is excited because he feels they're great strategy and action games. You lay down your strategy at the beginning of the game and then modify that strategy during real-time using game paddles. Bez-Mx and Bez-I should he available in December."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bez-MX to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the arguments of Cunard regarding the GNG. If consensus finds against retaining the article regardless, then I would suggest a merge to the List of Apple II games would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE and to provide a starting point should further sources materialize in the future. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - per WP:THREE. As my comments above mention, the sourcing available isn't enough to sustain an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ghosts (Pac-Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?
Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis Let's break this down:
  • This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
  • Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
  • This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
  • the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
  • Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [1], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... CaptainGalaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [2] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight.works[edit]

Midnight.works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Contested PROD. There is not really much secondary coverage on the company. The purported notability is on the AppStore success of one title, Hashiriya Drifter. Sources in the article are primary or have a WP:PROMO feel, with this source even inviting readers to become part of the team. A very quick WP:BEFORE only finds some coverage from Nintendo Life about a allegations of the conduct of the studio making 'scam' games. None of this seems to cumulatively provide evidence of sustained, significant coverage about the studio that would warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a draft of an article for the next upload to improve its quality. This company resembles 11bit studios, which developed Frostpunk and other games, but not everyone is familiar with Frostpunk. VollyM (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to locate anything meeting the criteria. BBC pointed to an article in #diez, but on review of the original (google translate) it appears to also clearly fail ORGIND (the BBC coverage does not really go beyond that the article exists). It seems unlikely we'll be able to locate sources meeting the criteria beyond doubt. I'm not sure what VollyM means by their comment, if they want to keep working on a draft, I'm happy to support that (it can be requested at WP:REFUND if not closed that way), but in my judgement it is unlikely for eligible sources to exist. I would recommend making use of the draft review process if that is the path embarked upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that they were kicked of the Playstation store sometime earlier this year (see [3][4][5]) and appear to be publishing more games under a bunch of different labels (see [6] and this comment in particular), though i'm unsure if that's enough to meet notability guidelines but figured I post this here (first time posting in these deletion discussions by the way so apologies if I did something wrong.) Knockknock987 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all! Deletion discussions are for everyone and it's important everyone shares their views in the context of the deletion policy. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vrxces and Alpha3031 make a good case for deletion, and my own search uncovered nothing new. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell[edit]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources below do not provide the necessary WP:DEPTH needed for an article on the topic, and I can't find any that would. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vette (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It still feels like the only good source is [11] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo[edit]

International Hobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mania (series)[edit]

Cake Mania (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first game is absolutely notable, but I can't find notability for the series. The page has been without valid sources since 2010. It's best off mentioned on the page of the first game, i.e. in a "Legacy" section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree, the first game is definitely notable. The other games, not so much. The second game has some articles from Pocket Gamer [12] [13] [14] [15] and a preview from IGN [16] and this one [17] (technically a reliable source according to WP:VG/S). The sources for every game just go downhill from here because all I found for the third game was [18]. The idea to put it under a 'Legacy' section in the article for the first game is great. Props to nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went ahead and added a legacy section for the first game per comments above. I did find 3 different RS reviews for Cake Mania 2, so if you really wanted to, you could maybe make a standalone article for it, but I'll leave that to some other editor. One annoying thing was the games have been released on a bunch of different platforms at different times, and are all delisted from stores now, so I was struggling to find accurate release dates for all of them. In the end I just listed the release years and avoided going into specifics. CurlyWi (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1224156314"