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.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions[edit]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 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...... Captain Galaxy 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]

Midnight.works[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 14 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 [2][3][4]) and appear to be publishing more games under a bunch of different labels (see [5] 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]
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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no reviews found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some brief mentions in print magazines but nothing what I would call significant coverage: [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Mika1h (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It still feels like the only good source is [10] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mania (series)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 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 [11] [12] [13] [14] and a preview from IGN [15] and this one [16] (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 [17]. 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]

Omocat[edit]

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

Omocat is not independently notable of Omori (video game), and the majority of sourcing in this article is about the game and not Omocat beyond some passing mentions. WP:GNG failure. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 2, 3, and 4 are all about OMOCAT themself and not specifically OMORI. Additionally, OMOCAT has their own successful individual page on the Japanese Wikipedia.

OMOCAT fits the notability requirement in that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The articles and reviews about OMORI itself fit the requirement: "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work". Because of this, it's significant to mention OMORI as it is their most well-known work. Their fashion line, independent of OMORI, has garnered attention in the U.S and Japan, hence their article in Japanese Wikipedia. Alexapar21 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Omori~~ Omori (video game). It is a common mistake to assume notability is inherited from something a developer created, however the developer has to have standalone notability, which this developer does not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am assuming that the intended redirect target would be Omori (video game) (which OMOCAT in all-caps redirects to) rather than the Omori disambiguation page. (I don't have any other opinion or comment beyond that at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omori (video game) The coverage about Omocat mainly stems from her Omori work, her other ventures have received little coverage that is not PR. Jumpytoo Talk 05:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omori (video game). Notability is not inherited. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZyX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails per WP:NONENG, WP:VG/SE, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TRIVIAL. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is WP:NONENG relevant as a deletion reason? Charcoal feather (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling the Japanese name, エッチなバニーさんは嫌い, within archive.org netted at least two cases of apparent Japanese nontrivial print coverage – Game Criticism Vol. 39 (July 2001) p. 107 and BugBug 2001-05 p. 56.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favor redirect to ZyX over delete, but weak keep either way, per WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. I looked at LaukkuTheGreit's sources and both of them definitely look like WP:SIGCOV. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolute Games review & the 2 Japanese sources are just enough to meet GNG. -Mika1h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Japanese sources offer significant coverage. If not kept should be redirected to ZyX (brand) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the print sources Laukku found constitute sigcov, and should together with the other be enough to meet GNG.--Alexandra^IDV 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this now meets GNG after considering Laukku's sources. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]