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.
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:
Comment I am confused by the nominators rationale, if they say the split is justified then the article should be kept no? The concer about it being excessively detailed is
WP:FIXABLE.
JumpytooTalk17:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is it fixable though? Can we write an out-of-universe article sourced to third party sourcing? Or will this always be a massive unsourced collection of plot summary?
Sergecross73msg me18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG, with few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources.
This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep - Gamerstek review is archived here:
[2]. According to their
about page, they had a video game section in
Destak newspaper, which indicates some sort of reliability. However, it's a moot point if there are no other potential reliable sources since 1 review is not enough. PTGamers.com review ref seems completely dead, but looking at their archived main site (
[3]) there doesn't seem to be an about page or similar, I can't find anything to indicate any reliability. --
Mika1h (
talk)
18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Forgot to mention that Push Start ref, which is an independently published digital magazine, seems unreliable to me looking at the editorial page:
[4]. --
Mika1h (
talk)
18:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The game got in-depth coverage in a June 2004 issue of
Mega Score, including
an interview (p.30, 31), and
a review (p.70, 71). The only other coverage I was able to find is a brief mention of the game in a 2021
article from the newspaper Observador about video games about Portugal. It's possible that the game got coverage in Portuguese newspapers at the time of release (Newspapers.com has no Portuguese newspapers unfortunately and I wouldn't know where else to look), as the Observator article and the interview in Mega Score indicate that the game was partially funded by
Soure city hall.
Waxworker (
talk)
19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 11:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Literally no coverage other than their website found. Working with Microsoft in this case means publishing games on their platform, which isn't notable. They make software, but don't describe what it is or why it's notable, further hindering our efforts to prove notability. I can't find anything about this commercial enterprise.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: No sign of notability anywhere. I'm not even sure if it still exists. Looks like a relic from the past when notability standards were much less strict. CFA💬01:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Most if not all articles about Disruptor Beam and Beamable are simple announcements that fail
WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The article itself appears to fail
WP:NCORP without significant coverage.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in
WP:NOTADVERT.
P3D7AQ09M6 (
talk)
Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate
Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself.
P3D7AQ09M6 (
talk)
04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe delete both of them.
Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.
In the spirit of
WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!
re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors as the nominator states they didn't mean to nominate this article (so a withdrawal of sorts) but an editor is arguing for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply