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[edit]

HB Arcade Cards[edit]

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

I could not find any significant coverage besides the Nintendo Life and IGN reviews in the article. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KoGaMa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly written as an advertisement with no indication of notability. Almost all sources are self-published. B3251_(talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. B3251_(talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails GNG. Suggest WP:SALT due to repeated recreations of a non-notable page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing good found in search either. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Hakushaku[edit]

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

It exists but isn't notable enough for its own article, and I can't find a good WP:ATD. Has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for a long time. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any coverage on Archive.org, even in Japanese magazine sources. Oh! X and MicomBASIC issues both came up in my search, but the game wasn't in the reviews in the table of contents for the issues that came up, and appears to just have been listed in lists of games for sale in ads in the magazines. Fails GNG. Waxworker (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Australia. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually the 2nd AfD, the previous one was in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party). --Mika1h (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirakira (video game)[edit]

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

Nothing in the article suggests this game is notable; single footnote is to some Internet radio show whose relation to the game is not even clear from the article. Metacritic has no reviews. Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. TheBritinator (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game did get significant coverage in Siliconera, suggesting there is potentially more out there despite the vague name not doing it many favors. It also got a review from UK Anime Network, but the jury is out on whether they are reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews in Siliconera and RPG Fan, both reliable per WP:VG/S. 2 reviews in UK Anime Network: [1], [2]. Per WP:A&M/RS reviews by Andy Hanley are reliable. --Mika1h (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mika1h, the game has enough sources to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplex City Stories[edit]

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

There's zero RS talking about this. All sources on article now are primary. Only one I could find was [3] which does not sufficiently establish passing WP:GNG Soni (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Soni (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Perplex City per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there's nothing in the article to really merge. It's a planned video game that never actually happened. All plot and similar details are unsourced or come from primary sources. The only thing worth noting here is that "This was planned and didn't happen" and maybe whatever we can scrounge off the Engadget interview I found (The interview isn't actually used in the article yet).

So we can theoretically close it as a merge, but it's effectively a deletion. There's nothing worth saving, (nearly?) everything's already in the Perplex City article. Soni (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case redirect rather than merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Fortnite Festival[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE content that has nothing worth merging into Fortnite Festival. Unlike some other rhythm games, there is no worthwhile coverage of this games song selection, especially since it isn't based on DLC. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless WP:GAMECRUFT list, as said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not useless at all buddy, Guitar Hero games have list of songs and so do other song games like Just Dance, and Rock Band WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a topic better suited for some other wiki. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, like this man is hating on me and calling this wiki useless for no reason, even thought other music games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and Just Dance have a list of their songs in their wiki or a separate wiki. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait nvm you chose for it to be deleted as well, you guys make no sense WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Music. Wikishovel (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Shouldn't even be a section in the parent article, let alone its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
may I ask why? WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find a couple sources listing the songs. There may be some WP:NLIST potential, but GAMECRUFT and GAMEGUIDE make it a harder sell. I think a merge could be appropriate here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a job for a Spotify playlist and a specialist wiki, not us. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrSchimpf MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all the delete votes above. I will also add WP:NLIST, which works against the article rather than offering merge possibilities as speculated above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NEVENT. I was unable to any reliable sources about the article's subject. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how this is notable, coverage seems very superficial and niche. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 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) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this source [4] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([5], [6]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.

-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.

-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.

-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.

-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.

-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.

-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.

-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.

-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.

-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.

-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.

-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.

-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.

-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.

-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.

-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.

-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.

-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.

-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.

-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.

-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.

-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.

-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.

-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.

-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.

-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.

-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.

-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.

-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.

-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.

-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.

-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.

-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.

I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)[edit]

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Dead or Alive series. The article is a huge mess and needs a full rewrite even if she was notable. Should be merged for now per TNT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I'm admittedly not seeing much in the way of significant coverage here. Ping me if additional sources are found, but for now I don't believe this is meeting notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd trust that KFM did an extensive WP:BEFORE check. Maybe someone can find notable commentary someday and split it out again, but today is not that day. I also want to add to anyone unfamiliar with the situation, this article was written by a banned editor who had a lot of bad habits with sources they used and content they wrote about. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence that this character is notable. The reception is mostly just a listicles on how sexy she is, garbage. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm and Pokelego999. MK at your service. 14:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if I'm voting on this, but this strikes me as one of those articles where had much of it had not been written by Niemti, but rather someone else, it likely wouldn't be listed here in AFD. I can't access the whole thing, but apparently, this talks about Kasumi and Ayane (the latter of which I was actually working on a draft for). And the sources from IGN, Hardcore Gaming 101, Kotaku and Joystick Division are pretty good. Should the article get merged, maybe those sources can be used if someone tries and recreates it. MoonJet (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Knight Windom XP[edit]

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

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google gave me a bunch of results for unrelated games on ModDB, and WP:LIBRARY isn't really helping. Fails GNG. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late response, been busy. i believe that Griffin's article does fall under notability due to him being cast in multiple significant roles in noteworthy projects (tartaglia in genshin, nate adams from yokai watch, Mule from berserk). Minmarion (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for an actor is not "has been in stuff"; having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, meaning that by definition every actor who exists at all has had acting roles and wouldn't be an actor at all if they hadn't, so quite literally every actor who exists at all would be "inherently" notable if simply listing acting roles were all it took.
The notability test for an actor requires reliable source coverage about him and his performances in real media, demonstrating that his performances have been independently verified as significant ones by somebody other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article must pass either the general notability guidelines, or a subject specific guideline. WP:ENTERTAINER states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Voice actors, and others on the list there as entertainers, are notable for their work, not what others say about it. You can see how many episodes the characters he voices are in for each series listed, so these are significant roles, not a one time minor character. Dream Focus 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability per NACTOR works. Like I said above, every actor can list roles, so every actor would automatically be "inherently" notable if simply listing roles were all it took — so notability as an actor doesn't vest in simply listing roles, and does require evidence of reliable source about him and his performances. Reliable sources have to tell us whether any given role is "significant" enough to count toward NACTOR #1 in the first place, which they do by writing third-party coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all actors have notable roles. If you had reliable sources, it'd pass the general notability guidelines, and so the subject specific guidelines would have no reason to exist. More than one way to determine notability, this how it was setup from the beginning. Dream Focus 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's the deal let's not be deletion of Griffin Burns i mean he did not get any wrong article you suppose to fix the wikipedia of Griffin Burns without copying and risk of deletion article, this guys is best voice actor he appeared many TV shows and anime and video games i remember watching his voice appearing from Netflix Griffin Burns is a Top of Voice Actor genre, So I repeat Restart the Article without copying other people on wikipedia and without risk of deletion. Top-Gman3304 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT for a least a year due to almost no sources that can establish notability. Biography section could be made one sentence due to the weakness of the sources. Most of the article is sources that would not pass a reliability test. I've tried to look at this from other angles, but there's nothing here to get this article to the next level or be kept. Esw01407 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company)[edit]

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

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic has been deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games. Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satsify WP:GNG for my liking and shouldn't be made by COI editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mundfish[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Cited coverage in secondary sources is limited to coverage of the subject's sole published game, Atomic Heart, and the page should thus redirect to there. Other coverage falls short of WP:ORGCRITE specifications: unbylined pieces in news aggregators (themselves citing a non-independent interview [7]), interviews ([8], [9], [10]), an unbylined press release in Armenian cited as if it were multiple sources ([11], [12]), and business churnalism [13]. None of the above even begin to make a case for NCORP, and searching for additional coverage online just turned up results about Atomic Heart again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Cyprus. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE. My view is that any coverage is so closely linked to their game that it is better to have it all on one page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)[edit]

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

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been WP:BLAR'd multiple times despite clear opposition to it, which its detractors claim is pointless bureaucracy. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept or redirected yet, but I should note that this spin-off series has several mentions in reliable sources, which makes me think it should be put up to a real AfD discussion rather than hidden on a talk page. Despite technically being part of the Donkey Kong series, the "Vs. Mario" sub-series is long-running and its games have gotten large amounts of coverage, making it possibly undue to simply be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubal: The reason we're here is because this is a procedural AfD on behalf of editors who simply wished to soft delete the article without prior discussion, despite WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) over the current redirect, 2) then redirect it to Donkey Kong#Mario vs. Donkey Kong (to preserve history), 3) move Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A valid opposition to a BLAR, which is what we have here, means this is a valid AfD discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ was correct to start this disscussion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the validity of the opposition, I'm arguing that the BLAR was valid and the argument for why it was controversial is not there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donkey Kong. The original BLAR was an entirely valid move, and the sources cited by the nominator only help support that the sub-subject is perfectly valid to discuss within the context of the main Donkey Kong series article. Additionally I feel this AfD disrupts an ongoing move discussion at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donkey Kong. Speaking as the one who originally redirected the article, I've been rewriting Donkey Kong for the past several months and there simply isn't really much to say about Mario vs. Donkey Kong that can't be said at Donkey Kong. What you'd have is little more than a list of entries, a purpose already served by List of Donkey Kong video games, and it's worth noting that there already exists consensus that Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it's not clear to me what the possible redirect target article is agreed upon here as several different "Donkey Kong" or "Mario" articles are mentioned in editors' opinions. There is agreement on the outcome of having this article Redirected, I just wish it was clearer what it was to be Redirected to. Once that is clear to a closer, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to redirect to Donkey Kong. I don't see other Mario articles proposed here as redirect targets. --Mika1h (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donkey Kong per WP:ATD-R, and the series already has a sub-section in the Mario (franchise) article which is good enough. MK at your service. 05:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mario vs. Donkey Kong, shouldn't the series be redirected to the first game of the series since Donkey Kong doesn't have a section for Mario vs. Donkey Kong. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed in #2002–2010: After Rare (third paragraph). Lubal (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox[edit]

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

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [14], [15]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
- I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [16] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
- And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though no support for deletion has arrived, both !votes say weak keep and the other commenter is only leaning keep. More discussion could help. Even if the article survives AfD, though, it will clearly need improvement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: To clarify, the commenter "leaning" keep is the same as the second editor !voting weak keep (i.e. me), so there are two other editors chiming in, not three. Also, the article was improved if you check the history and one of the sources included, meaning that there is a Reception section now (when the AFD nomination was written there wasn't one). And while it was a "weak" keep, it's not that weak, to be clear. If I truly had no opinion I wouldn't have !voted, the "weak" part is simply acknowledging that the topic is borderline. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Redirects[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate