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

Felix LaHaye

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

This businessperson biography fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sourcing is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, media WP:INTERVIEWS, unreliable sources (a la Forbes Contributors) and affiliated sources (profiles on his university's website) to synthesize notability that doesn't exist. There's only one source that gets close to WP:SIGCOV (here) and even that is mostly interview-based. The 30-under-30-type awards received do not meet the award test of WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Video games, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

I cannot find any Reception on this game. I found this TheGamer source: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemate-pokemon-go-precursor/ but it was published before TheGamer's reliability date of August 2020, meaning it provides as much notability to the subject as an average Valnet source. Beyond that, Game Rant briefly discussed it, but it also does not add to notability and is part of this listicle. I checked Japanese sources, and found only passing mentions of the game's existence, and the sources in the article are either routine coverage of the game's announcement or not enough to establish notability. There is no Reception to really build this article with. A viable AtD for this subject is the "List of Pokemon video games" article, where the subject is mentioned, in order to preserve page history. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I did find this, but it still isn't enough for GNG. It could have a brief list explanation for what it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon books

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

This list is very much an INDISCRIMINATE failure. None of the books listed in this article have an article, meaning they fail NLIST, and there are no sources discussing Pokémon books in a significant context outside of the fact they exist, meaning there is no valid spin-out rationale. There is additionally no inclusion criteria on these books, meaning anything can fly (Ranging from guidebooks to anime episode adaptations to original fiction to quite literally anything) and given the sheer scope of books published under this franchise, it is almost certainly impossible to actually improve this list given the indiscriminate scope, lack of notability in any context, and overall lack of use this list provides as a result. This is frankly a case where I feel a deletion is a better alternative here given the amount of failures on several fronts this list provides with no viable AtD alternative. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem like it passes WP:LISTN - this is probably better off on Bulbapedia than Wikipedia, which also has full articles about each book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!

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

I cannot find any sources discussing this series. A search yields only mentions, with only a short paragraph from TheGamer here: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-comics-to-start-with/ being the only discussion I could find on the title. There's no significant coverage in terms of reviews, analysis, or anything else. As such, I don't believe this series meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage. This article could probably be redirected to List of Pokemon manga as an AtD (Even if that list itself isn't the greatest) as it is listed there and page history can be preserved for the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon manga per nom. Doesn't seem to remotely pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VG247

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

Doesn't appear to pass notability. The Uncharted review retraction paragraph seems to be only paragraph I suggest merging to Gamer Network. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If there's nothing else about it anywhere it might as well be merged. GamerPro64 02:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox Studio

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

This basically just rehashes content from the main Roblox article without any demonstration of how Roblox Studio (which, for the record, is pretty intertwined with Roblox and only Roblox at its core) is independently notable from Roblox, or why the subject page needs a split. Spoiler alert: it's not independently notable, and everything here that is reliable sourced and not trivia is already covered/can be covered at the Roblox article. Every single source in use here is either about Roblox (and not specifically studio), is a coding guide, or is a source with questionable reliability. This subject is better off covered as part of the main Roblox article, per WP:MERGEREASON. λ NegativeMP1 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Software. λ NegativeMP1 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, makes more sense. DavidTDC3377 // 💬 Talk 16:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Appears to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roblox, per nom. Svampesky (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Roblox article: As article creator, I obviously am biased, but I think that the article contains at least some useful information that is more detailed than that of the Roblox article. However, the above rationale seems sensible to me, so a merge seems to be the best option. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 12:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Is not notable User:Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roblox, it's part of the Roblox program suite Civic Nexus (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roblox per nom. MK at your service. 05:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that please. I don't know why and it's two programs, adding it to Roblox will make it so long. Hangshangs (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also add all the articles of this page after merging, don't shorten it.

Plus there is a main article template on the Roblox page. Hangshangs (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be WP:BITE-ing a new editor, but please provide a specific vote before your reason per WP:AFDFORMAT. In this case it would be Keep. MK at your service. 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playware Studios

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Technology, and Singapore. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite its many sources, fails WP:GNG. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I do not think a possible conflict of interest alone is a sufficient AfD reasoning, many articles were probably written unknowningly with a conflict of interest. Probably notability issues, but some projects received press coverage. IgelRM (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Mistria

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I'll fully admit this is on the edge, but the main sources used here, TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are essentially unreliable. The game only got 2 major reviews from RS, one from PCGamer and the other from The Escapist, and while it got numerous pieces of coverage from PCGamer, that counts as a single source as far as GNG is concerned. The other mentions the game had, such as in Kotaku, are just trivial coverage of announcements and don't include actual reviews of the game, leaving the amount of significant coverage below the bar for a typical game article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(article creator) Keep or draftify I've removed Noisy Pixel from the article, considering that most other sources mention same things as them, and added recent RS. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is not listed as an unreliable source, unlike Noisy Pixel. The game has actually been reviewed beyond PCGamer and The Escapist, though they might not be as detailed as those two sources. The amount of coverage it received though, especially for an indie early access game from an unknown studio, is enough to meet WP:GNG standards. If editors think the opposite, I feel like the article should then at least be draftified because it will probably continue getting coverage from RS in the coming period (the game was just released in early access last week), after which the article will certainly be ready for mainspace, if it is not ready now. I do not think that straight up deleting the article will be helpful, considering that it will certainly then be re-created at some point in the future. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the 4 discussions on the site, it was struck out as Unreliable. I'm actually not sure why it's listed as inconclusive. But if people decide otherwise here, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD.

The game is early access, so you could be right about the WP:TOOSOON. I still think that merits deletion rather than draftification. This is a case where the page should be saved locally until such time it can be rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree, but I'd like to hear opinions from other editors. The game has received better or same coverage as other games listed at Upcoming video games scheduled for 2025. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As someone who planned to create this article, this game is likely to be notable within the next six months (when drafts get deleted after 6 months of no activity) because the game was just released into early access this month. Currently, Metacritic shows just two reviews, both of which are unreliable. Plus two sources is just under what makes a topic notable and its only been a week since launch (I normally say at least three reliable sources). You can see why I didn't publish it rn but planned to work on it by end of month. The article is much larger than expected also. I have a draft sitting in my userspace about this game JuniperChill (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ATD to Draftify: It is Too Soon to "Keep". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would not be against draftifying (ATD) if consensus agrees there might be more than bare notability of a Stardew Valley knock-off in the near future. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Draftify. Disclaimer that I came here after the creator asked for feedback on the quality of the article in the Wikipedia VG project discord. That said, I find the assertion "TechRaptor is unreliable" to be a bit of bunk as it's recognized as inconclusive by WP:VG/S and just had a recent discussion to that end. There are also several other sources independently discussing the subject's early access release such as Siliconera and Destructoid. Probably one concern is WP:SUSTAINED as many of the sources are in a small window of time, but there's at least enough reaction to indicate a degree of notability from it's Early Access release. The absolute worse case is if it fizzles beyond this it can be revisited later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really an argument why "inconclusive" should be counted as reliable. That means "possibly unreliable" and we should only use sources that are confirmed to have full reliability. There are plenty of games with numerous reliable source articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm not even going to entertain that argument, you've been with the project long enough to know that's not how that works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Not voting keep because I haven't looked into the sources fully. I don't think there's any reasonable grounds for deletion here - the game has only just released to early access and we already have enough coverage to write a 1000+-word article on it. If it doesn't yet belong in mainspace, the appropriate action is to draftify it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify: I voted on Keep or Draftify because the unreliable sources can be change and find anotehr source that are reliable, Although, WP:TOOSOON can be applied here but it was released on Early access on August 5, 2024. I check earlier and TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are gone on references so that's good. But the article was concisely citated on reliable sources.

I say Draftify because it was so early to create this but since it was on Early Access ~~(i don't see where is in early access)~~ on Steam, I think it is good that is in mainspace now. Royiswariii (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I manage to find some good coverage for the game on Automaton Media. Hope this helps. Captain Galaxy 20:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added the source in the article, as well as a newer GamesRadar+ source. I'm unsure, however, whether to add the opinions of the YouTuber featured in the article. Their comparison is good enough, but this is the first time that they are mentioned in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Sunstone's videos are also good enough and she has done some live streams on it. I really love watching/listening to her while playing all sorts of stuff! JuniperChill (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cozy Gaming Club's commentary, however, has been cited by GamesRadar+ and Automaton. That's not the case for Sunstone. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that must be why. Normally, YouTube cannot be cited so maybe it can be mentioned that Ellie from The Cozy Gaming Club. Maybe its an exception here because a reliable source has mentioned this youtuber. I think its safe to include the youtuber's opinions in this case. JuniperChill (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net

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

A defunct website recently "in the news". Anecdotal evidence here doesn't appear to pass WP:NWEB. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I initially tried to redirect it due to only having extremely recent sources, but sources were added from 2019 and 2023 that shows it appears to pass SUSTAINED by having been mentioned repeatedly in the press. It was created in poor shape, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not an adequate deletion rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But which of these are significant coverage? The "Time Extension" article appears to be only one covering the site specifically. Mentions of the site hosting ROM hacks isn't enough for an article, maybe for some kind of list at best. I think a redirect or merge to ROM hacking or similar would make more sense.

Edit: I didn't give the Kotaku article much thought, which says "Within the community of people who like to hack old video games, it’s a big deal." IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After considering it further, I am changing my !vote to Merge to Rom hack. There still isn't enough SIGCOV to actually detail the site's history, as most of the coverage is mentioning it in the context of its closure. Having coverage to allow for the creation of a fleshed out article is one of the criteria for GNG, and this ain't it - even the creator acknowledges that, or they'd have added it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Games

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP, only local coverage or related to Rockstar. Maybe redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games? IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Florida. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of repackaged press releases and passing mentions, but I don't see any significant coverage. Donald Albury 17:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition § Development~~ The issues with the remasters when it released in November 2021 made them known as people wanted to know who was in charge of the kerfuffle. [1] Their name change in 2020 had to be in anticipation of the remasters because Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas. – The Grid (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:XY, this is not a good redirect target as the company is known for several games, including multiple Ark: Survival Evolved games. Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas is false; the name is explained in the article. IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I thought for sure it was because of GTA but surprised it's a Gainesville (and most likely University of Florida) moniker. I rescind my vote. – The Grid (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a game developer has its output assessed and judged by independent in-depth reviewers, then it constitutes significant coverage of what the company does, i.e. of the company. And I believe that has happened in the case of Grove Street Games. Geschichte (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. Note that the article currently doesn't mention reception of the ported game versions. IgelRM (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is definitely notable even though it does lean on the Mansion series. But overall, it is definitely helpful to readers including myself. Sackkid (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE,WP:ITSHELPFUL, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, I already made a separate comment about why it should be kept. Sackkid (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing another comment of yours that doesn't violates least one of the three things I cited above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no comments made by me that violated what you mentioned. Furthermore, please ensure you are respecting other people's votes and opinions. For me, it is almost like WP:BADGER. Aside from that, I can see this being merged with the Year of Luigi article instead of a full delete. Sackkid (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do think this passes WP:NLIST and is broadly talked about as a grouping in enough sources to let it be a standalone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The article has none discussing them as a group and none have been shown in this AfD nor found in any BEFOREs that would verify notability as a group. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though some of it is just about Luigi in general, this article from Nintendo Life does speak about the Luigi games as a group in the "going solo" section. On a side note, responding to almost every differing !vote in a discussion can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONy and not really respecting people's intelligence in being able to create a cogent opinion on a topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to BLUDGEON here. When I do ask questions, I'm asking them in cases where I feel it's valid to inquire further. For instance, here, josh's comment implies sources that have not been acknowledged to this point. If these sources prove notability, it would be good for the whole discussion to see to allow them to make a proper argument on whether this article should be kept or not, as new sources can definitely sway a lot of the discussion.

I will also note in this discussion that outside of this comment, I have only replied to two other oppose comments. One was the IP's, and the other was yours, which outright tried to dismiss my argument entirely. This required me to elaborate on my points in order to avoid further confusion, as I did not want later participants in the AfD being confused about my rationale for opening the discussion in the first place. A BLUDGEON is "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." If I were attempting to "force my view," I'd have replied to quite literally every comment without regard for the actual arguments being made, positing the exact same thing, such as my reply to your initial comment, over and over. This would have included nearly every "Keep" vote, or every comment that suggested Redirect over Deletion like my original nomination proposed, which is not the case. I'd appreciate not immediately assuming that I'm acting in bad faith solely because I'm acting as an active participant in the discussion. Either way, I'll try and stick out of replying further in order to avoid complicating the process, as I've clarified my points enough already. In any case, I would still like to see the sources josh is referring to though, since this could potentially bolster the "Keep" side's argument tremendously. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bludgeoning to ask for sources when a person alludes to sources they haven't actually identified. Hey man im josh can you please clarify your stance? It's causing confusion that I can't help explain. Its not really clear what sources you're referring to when you say you've found sources that satisfy NLIST. I'm not opposed to a keep stance but I having a hard time finding one that doesn't violate VAGUEWAVE so far... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Pokelego999: What exactly is the reason for deletion? Are you actually saying that there isn't enough coverage on the video games (excluding the Mansion series)? Are you saying there aren't enough installments (excluding the Mansion series)? I re-read the nomination summary but I still do not understand because the point of the article is highlight video games where Luigi is the main character which it appears to be doing. So what exactly is the argument? Sackkid (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify. The problem is not that the article isn't doing its job, but that the article just doesn't really have a valid spin-out rationale. The Luigi "series" isn't really a verifiable series per what sources I could find outside of LM, and Luigi games, outside of being a series, similarly lack sourcing outside of the Year of Luigi, which is more tied to that event than anything else. As such, it falls under something like Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as Luigi's games cannot be verified as a notable sub-group of games independently of the Luigi character. So yes, it's very much an issue of coverage on the games, barring LM, as well as the installments themselves being largely unrelated outside of Luigi happening to be the main character, with no real sources to verify the notability of these games as a notable group. I hope this clarifies my points a bit more succinctly, but let me know if you need more elaboration on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me ask this. If take out anything having to do Mario (with the exception of Mario Is Missing!; and treat Mario as a random character in that instance), would you still feel the same way? Because if we take Mario completely out of this, I still think it is a great stand-alone page. I think the lack of sources around the "Luigi's Hammer Toss" and "Mario Is Missing!" come from the fact that it was released in the 90s. But "New Super Luigi U" and "Dr. Luigi" have their own pages. Sackkid (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would feel the same way, mainly due to a lack of sourcing either way and the fact the page is covering even less subjects than it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ameen's argument has a substance. We do have separate articles to avoid the article getting too long. If we delete this article, all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Various entries in the article have their own article as well making the content encyclopedic. Muneebll (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muneebll, ...all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Not really. Various entries in the article have their own article... I don't see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for documentaries, most does. Documentaries also have sources given. In filmography sections, not every entry has article but we still mention them because the main subject is notable. Regardless of your ~~superficial~~ personal view, content of this article being encyclopedic has to be on Wikipedia, either in this article or main article. Muneebll (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Muneebll, Regardless of your superficial view WP:ADHOM. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, I don't see that...isn't a proper response either. WP:PPOV Muneebll (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Saqib: are you suggesting that the content in this page be merged selectively into the main one? That seems to be the most logical outcome. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      CherryPie94, Sure, why not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list meets the "information" criterion of WP:LISTPURPOSE, with verifiable information about a specific aspect of the activity of the subject, and it's not appropriate for a merge because it would make the parent article significantly longer and less focused. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NOTDIR (the contents are well-organized, (mostly) verified and include contextual info) so that element of the nomination doesn't apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971, WP:LISTPURPOSE Why are you referencing WP:MOS? You should cite a notability related policy or guideline. it's not appropriate for a merge Not all items on this list will be merged; only specific parts will be. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable Do you have any notability related policies or guidelines that confirm this? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  NLIST cites LISTPURPOSE, so it is connected to a notability guideline and appropriate to cite here. As for the notability of individual list entries, see the second criterion under WP:CSC; there can be valid informational purposes for lists whose individual entries are not notable and I think that’s the case here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge like CherryPie94 above. Not many productions appear to have reliable sources here. IgelRM (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. No sources have been provided for establishing WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. The list is well-organized and sourced, meeting the criteria of WP:LISTPURPOSE. War Wounded (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15#Nuzlocke