Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Video games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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:
Purge page cache watch

See also Games-related deletions.

Video games-related deletions

Jeffrey Ventrella

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

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

Darkworks

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

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

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

Ayeah Games

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

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

Keemokazi

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

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

Canderous Ordo

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

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

Dracthyr

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

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 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) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with "there are no reliable sources" "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.
    I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight: per above. C F A 💬 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. The GNG is met, and arguments that this is a gameplay mechanic first and foremost aren't germane to whether it has garnered multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm not opposed to an editorial merge, and it's a far superior ATD to deletion, but such a merger should not be forced by AfD when the sourcing is sufficiently robust to support a standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 06:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:NOPAGE. Just because a subject might be notable doesn't mean it needs its own article unless it's truly holds its own, which this does not. Taking a read for it myself, it seems to require a proper understanding of World at Warcraft, which violates MOS:VG and could stray into fandom territory. I don't see why the material from this page couldn't be merged into World of Warcraft. λ Negative MP1 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Press quotes about how good an in-game ability feels might belong in the reception about the game, at most. Even something like Mario jump doesn't have its own article, despite its mention in lots of sources. There is a clear merge target for this gameplay at World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Messhof

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

Fails notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM ( talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Looking for "Mark Essen" instead of "Messhof" I have found dozens of articles about how he has been one of the few game devs to be recognized as an artist by the art establishment with his games being placed in various art galleries. This also passes the criteria "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b ( talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works ( Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2 [1] and Ghost Bike [2] [3]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Czar. -- Un assiolo ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pro forma note that Czar is the article creator. What I get out of the rockpapershotgun article is that Messhof created freeware games prior to Nidhogg with a similar aesthetic. IgelRM ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I also wrote the GA for Nidhogg (video game). Yes, the detail of those freeware games and the background on what became his most notable games, are why the independent article is justified to house those details. czar 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Lloyd Floyd

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

Accvording to Pepapapopo ( talk · contribs): only one actual article about this guy is sourced, otherwise filled with unsourced information and i doubt this meets the notability requirements. An article was previously deleted at AfD, but I cannot determine if it was about the same person as this one, an American video game voice actor. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Batboat

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

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

  • Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    "[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender ( talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @ Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs ( talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of video games with gyro features

List of video games with gyro features (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.
I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.
I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.
I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG ( talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.
If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.
If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.
I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.
I think you should take a real close read of WP:OR and WP:RS. BrigadierG ( talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list would be massive it was correctly populated with all the Wii and Nintendo Switch games out there. There's mobile games, VG games, etc etc. The scope won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Is anyone reading the actual page or any of my comments? The Wii does not have a gyro sensor. A very limited list of games of that platform would be included on the list, more precisely 54 of 2560 games. This is written in the "Platform" section. The Wii Remote Wiki page also states the same information. In fact, the list that is already there, already includes most of the games that would qualify to be on that list, and that is certainly not every Wii game or every Switch game.
    I would understand if the concern was that the explanation given on the article leaves room for this kind of misconception, so a solution would be to simply refine what's already there. But so far, the deletion requests are coming from people who don't know what Gyro is, this is a baseless concern, that is already addressed in the page itself, that only goes to show how people could benefit from the information contained on this article. Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I see the term gyroscope peppered through the Wii Remote article, so I'm not sure I'm following how that's not a "gyro feature", but regardless, that was a relatively small part of my overall argument that would still stand even if the Wii is somehow not relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Quick correction: Only Wii Remote Plus or Wii Remote's Motion Plus accessory has gyroscope capabiltiies. Actual usage of gyorscope in Wii titles are rare (obviously) and it's often a requirement for these titles, but on top of my head: Wii Sports Resort and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.
    if you ask me: this entire "list" should become Gyroscopic control (gaming) while the *real* List of video games with gyro features should only be a list. and I have gave that feedback directly to Ivan in a separate social media site/group thingin. AL2009man ( talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Wii Remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, uses only an accelerometer and an IR sensor. Gyro was indeed introduced later with the Motion Plus accessory, so the list of games that support this accessory is very limited. So no, not every Wii game uses gyro, Motion Controls (accelerometer) and Motion Controls (Gyroscopes) are 2 different things that lead to different results.
    Regardless, as I said above. I understand the concern with the scope of this article, I feel the biggest problem is in the premise being too broad. If this article was called "List of console games with gyro aim", would that help? It would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library, low effort mobile games and VR games, thus clearing up any confusion with the title and premise. Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, still multiple issues to address:
    1. This article uses a lot of unreliable/unusable sources. For example, any wikis would fail WP:USERG. That all needs to go.
    2. Every entry needs to be reliably sourced. See WP:VG/S for the sorts of sources that are usable or unusable. Are we really going to be able to do this with this subject?
    3. Lists should meet WP:NLIST. That requires better sourcing too. Are there WP:VG/S approved sources that do this?
    I have serious concerns about all of these points, especially since, by your own admission, gyro is such a poorly documented feature. That is absolutelynot a way one would want to describe the subject of their Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I see. Usually everything about gyro is documented by the community, because the stigma around this feature is enough for it to not be listed anywhere in any official capacity. I can try to address these issues, but if I can't, I guess I will have to search for another place to do this. Thank you so much for your time and for being the only person to actually reply to anything I asked on this site. I sent multiple messages throughout the process to my "mentor" to make sure if I wasn't falling on these pitfalls, and no one answered. Anyway, Thank you! Ivan Iovine Monteiro ( talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify and move – after figuring out "gyros" isn't referring to Greek cuisine (somehow I totally misread the title at first), I think the prose section could be a good starting point for an article about gyroscopes in video games (after some major cleanup), but the list section is too indiscriminate. For the few games where gyroscopic features are particularly relevant, they could be discussed in prose. So I would support moving to draftspace, but only if the article is overhauled with a different focus and the article title is changed to the general topic instead of a list. AL2009man's suggestion of Gyroscopic control (gaming) would work, as would something like Gyroscopes in video games. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Amiga Active

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

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

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

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

Goodboy Galaxy

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

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

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 ( talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//
According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 ( talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Double Eleven (company)

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment The developer appears notable enough to be mentione somewhere as an WP:ATD. Also related to Pneuma insidermedia.com IgelRM ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There is enough coverage about the company itself to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The two articles presented above by OceanHok are particularly in-depth. The company has also received a lot of less-in-depth coverage about their games. While notability is not inherited, these articles do focus more on the company than you might expect because of the specific agreement they were trying to reach about the game (ex: [7] [8] [9]). Coverage definitely adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Redirects

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 8. ( | history)

"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [10]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h ( talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I must note here that my removal of Nuzlocke is a WP:DUE thing, not a WP:GNG. I have no objections to its notability, though I objected to its inclusion in the main article the same way I would object to including Pokémon Sage or Pokémon Fossil Museum in the main article. Juxlos ( talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games&oldid=1233915155"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE